From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 1-NOV-2005 01:08:02.62
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
> I would shove them out of the way and make my get-away, as do nice dogs.
> Jackie Perkins
> BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
> Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
Hi Jackie,
We haven't spoken for a while.
OK lets firstly set my position straight so there is no misunderstanding. As you know I have at times when absolutely necessary used remote command collars and bark collars as as *TEMPORARY* behavour interuptors and if I believe the situaion warrants it for safety of life to any one or animal in the situation I would again.
There are not my first call nor are they my last. Each behavour modification case is individual and must be addressed as such.
In my view if for safety sake an aversive is deemed necessary then a human, ethical trainer uses the least one that will be effective in the circumstances.
Reviewing at all times whether it is is necessary to continue with its use further.
There is in my view no one size fits all magic pill in behavioural modification.
So I do not write this as any anti remote collar zealot.
Moving to my point in response to your above. Looking at your above and the intimations of what you are saying here yes I agree that using e-collars collars can teach avoidance behaviour and so the dog would rather run away than show an agression precursor. i.e the bark or growl.
So let's now look at a case out of my own case book. We saw a dog who had had the precursors to agression. (i.e. a growl or a bark) punished every time to the point where it was now fearful of doing them at anytime. So it obviously now chooses avoidance as in escaping away from the problem each time.
What do you think would happen when this dog was chased by a persistant toddler into a corner it couldn't get away from?
I think we both know what the result would be. It still wouldn't issue the precursor (the bark) but it will deliver the end of the sequence. (The bite)
All dogs if they feel threatened enough *will* bite. The same as any organism if it feels threatened enough *will* use agression to gain it's end.
It is not a question of good dogs will always avoid the situation or it is only bad dogs who bite.
How does a dog push a human out of it's road. A toddler it could probably push over. I suggest that the same result might happen to the dog. The toddler would be howling it's eyes out (The doggy hurt me) and without the adult seeing what actually happened the dog might be punished for agressive behavour. Not a good course of action I agree but it does happen many times as we know.
I say toddlers and dogs should never be left unsupervised at any time. Not because either is bad but because there is no common language or understanding between them.
Where am I going with this?
While I am not in favour of banning these devices or any physical punishment device (OK maybe one) IMO they should not be sold over the counter as they are. They should not be promoted as they are by the manufacturers and their agents as an easy instant fix to anything.
They should only be in the hands of proven ethical, experienced trainers and behavioural consultants. Even then they should not be lightly sold.They should come with a recognised course of instructions and warnings not just with a video and/or written instructions on how to operate them.
After all do we let our teenagers learn to drive in the very first instance with the most powerful sports car available on the motorway where they can and probably will kill themselves and/or someone else.
I think the above case from my own files shows the danger of just suppressing symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying problem. This is the reality of the way these devices are often used by the general public. Which is why I say these devices should not be available just OTC.
Secondly Jackie. I ask you to produce facts and/data to support your hypethosis expressed earlier that "dogs crave discipline"
In my view every single organism in this world is programmed with the wish to survive and enjoy the best possible conditios it can.
If to get the best they can then this means responding to discipline then they will but I feel it is a huge leap from my above reality to "dogs (or any organism) crave discipline".
Regards John L.
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 01:31:38.18
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
I was attempting to make the point that fully competent and ethically aware
members of our society would never assault a child, and many dogs would not
either because they recognise them as not fully competent tending to "cut
them slack" as they do puppies. Children fail to recognise the cues that
dogs give them to stay away eg growling or turning away. Most nice dogs put
up with rather a lot from children, and run away if its gets to be too much.
They have plenty of alternatives other than to bite. Also, dogs tend to
follow the example of their human pack regarding interactions with children.
I have found that dogs that seem to hate children, or women, may be like
that because their human is like that too.
thanks for the comments,
Jackie Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary BEhaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: FW: Barking problem was (no subject)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:03 PM
> To: Good Dog Behaviour Consultants
> Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
>
> My point was and is: We humans have a period in our development which
> precludes our ability to respond without escalation. Therefore, my
> answer is yes, humans do behave in the way you have described, bite,
> kick, punch for poking with pencils.
>
> I didn't know your example stipulated humans above a certain age.
>
> Trisha
>
> On Oct 31, 2005, at 7:51 PM, Good Dog Behaviour Consultants wrote:
>
>> I did not know there were any children on this list.
>> "Would you bite, kick, or punch a child for poking you with a
>> pencil?" where "you" are the list members.
>> Jackie
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg & Jackie"
>>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:57 PM
>> Subject: FW: Barking problem was (no subject)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:54 PM
>>> To: Good Dog Behaviour Consultants
>>> Cc: Whitebirds; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
>>> Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
>>>
>>> Actually, children do bite, kick, shove, and punch when a conspecfic
>>> pokes them with pencils. For examples in the literature, see the
>>> studies done in Brazil on school children. ( I don't have the
>>> researcher's name right now, but she did the research about ten years
>>> ago.)
>>>
>>> Trisha
>>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2005, at 6:20 PM, Good Dog Behaviour Consultants wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would you bite, kick, or punch a child for poking you with a pencil?
>>>> I would shove them out of the way and make my get-away, as do nice
>>>> dogs.
>>>> Jackie Perkins
>>>> BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
>>>> Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Greg & Jackie
>>>> To: gooddog@dodo.com.au
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:14 AM
>>>> Subject: FW: Barking problem was (no subject)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:48 PM
>>>> To: clager@c.dk; dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au
>>>> Cc: whitebird@xtra.co.nz; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
>>>> Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 10/30/2005 10:57:10 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>>>> clager@c.dk writes:
>>>>
>>>> Jackie argues that a dog should not bite even if poked with a
>>>> pencil - and says that murderers have reasons too.
>>>> I do not think you can make that connection - the dog that bites
>>>> after being tormented by a child is not reacting as a murderer but
>>>> in selfdefense - most countries do have laws for humans saying that
>>>> it is ok to defend oneself against attackers.
>>>> Even the nicest dog will defend itself if hurt bad enough - the
>>>> parent that did not supervise and teach the child to treat the dog
>>>> nicely are to blame. Not the dog.
>>>>
>>>> You know I think this may quickly degenerate into one of those
>>>> conversations where someone makes an absolutist statement in order
>>>> to make a point and then other people pick out inevitable
>>>> absurdities and force the person to defend straw men. I think it
>>>> is pretty safe to say that everyone or nearly everyone here agrees
>>>> that some behaviors are unacceptable in domestic animals and humans
>>>> but that there are circumstances and settings in which such
>>>> behaviors are excusable or inevitable. We may disagree about where
>>>> exactly to draw the line, but arguing such things in the
>>>> hypothetical is fruitless in a forum like this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This all reminds me of a somewhat unrelated topic. I had the
>>>> privilege of owning ferrets for a few years and man, those are
>>>> weird wonderful animals. My ferrets were both from Marshall's,
>>>> which has a reputation of producing good natured animals, but these
>>>> girls were good natured to the point of ridiculousness. They seemed
>>>> to only have a capacity for two emotions, curiosity and
>>>> playfulness. They had a lot of interaction with preschoolers
>>>> because my son was that age, and damn they seemed to thrive on
>>>> abuse that would have driven a human or dog to a breakdown. I was
>>>> quite protective of them at first, but the more the preschoolers
>>>> hounded, poked, dragged around and otherwise "abused" these little
>>>> furry slinkys, the more entertained they seemed to be. Yeah they
>>>> got tired and I did my best to make sure that they weren't crushed
>>>> or broken, but there capacity to deal with rough and awkward play
>>>> was quite superhuman and touching. One thing I was convinced of is
>>>> this fearless little species is fully domesticated; there is no way
>>>> they would survive in the wild.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 01:46:51.90
To: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
I should have been clearer. I was not talking of using electronic training
collars on dogs around children. I was raising several topics within the one
posting and it seems to have become confusing; I was talking about
overrating reasons for behaviour and that I thought that behaviours that
negatively impact the health of others need to be rapidly changed in the
interests of everyone's health and longevity of the dog.
Dogs that are not good with children need to be kept away from children at
least in the short term.
sorry for any confusion
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:13 PM
Subject: FW: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
-----Original Message-----
From: k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz [mailto:k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:07 PM
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
> I would shove them out of the way and make my get-away, as do nice dogs.
> Jackie Perkins
> BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
> Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
Hi Jackie,
We haven't spoken for a while.
OK lets firstly set my position straight so there is no misunderstanding.
As you know I have at times when absolutely necessary used remote command
collars and bark collars as as *TEMPORARY* behavour interuptors and if I
believe the situaion warrants it for safety of life to any one or animal in
the situation I would again.
There are not my first call nor are they my last. Each behavour
modification case is individual and must be addressed as such.
In my view if for safety sake an aversive is deemed necessary then a human,
ethical trainer uses the least one that will be effective in the
circumstances.
Reviewing at all times whether it is is necessary to continue with its use
further.
There is in my view no one size fits all magic pill in behavioural
modification.
So I do not write this as any anti remote collar zealot.
Moving to my point in response to your above. Looking at your above and the
intimations of what you are saying here yes I agree that using e-collars
collars can teach avoidance behaviour and so the dog would rather run away
than show an agression precursor. i.e the bark or growl.
So let's now look at a case out of my own case book. We saw a dog who had
had the precursors to agression. (i.e. a growl or a bark) punished every
time to the point where it was now fearful of doing them at anytime. So it
obviously now chooses avoidance as in escaping away from the problem each
time.
What do you think would happen when this dog was chased by a persistant
toddler into a corner it couldn't get away from?
I think we both know what the result would be. It still wouldn't issue the
precursor (the bark) but it will deliver the end of the sequence. (The bite)
All dogs if they feel threatened enough *will* bite. The same as any
organism if it feels threatened enough *will* use agression to gain it's
end.
It is not a question of good dogs will always avoid the situation or it is
only bad dogs who bite.
How does a dog push a human out of it's road. A toddler it could probably
push over. I suggest that the same result might happen to the dog. The
toddler would be howling it's eyes out (The doggy hurt me) and without the
adult seeing what actually happened the dog might be punished for agressive
behavour. Not a good course of action I agree but it does happen many times
as we know.
I say toddlers and dogs should never be left unsupervised at any time. Not
because either is bad but because there is no common language or
understanding between them.
Where am I going with this?
While I am not in favour of banning these devices or any physical
punishment device (OK maybe one) IMO they should not be sold over the
counter as they are. They should not be promoted as they are by the
manufacturers and their agents as an easy instant fix to anything.
They should only be in the hands of proven ethical, experienced trainers
and behavioural consultants. Even then they should not be lightly sold.They
should come with a recognised course of instructions and warnings not just
with a video and/or written instructions on how to operate them.
After all do we let our teenagers learn to drive in the very first instance
with the most powerful sports car available on the motorway where they can
and probably will kill themselves and/or someone else.
I think the above case from my own files shows the danger of just
suppressing symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying problem. This
is the reality of the way these devices are often used by the general
public. Which is why I say these devices should not be available just OTC.
Secondly Jackie. I ask you to produce facts and/data to support your
hypethosis expressed earlier that "dogs crave discipline"
In my view every single organism in this world is programmed with the wish
to survive and enjoy the best possible conditios it can.
If to get the best they can then this means responding to discipline then
they will but I feel it is a huge leap from my above reality to "dogs (or
any organism) crave discipline".
Regards John L.
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 06:39:44.42
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Cecilia Lambert wrote:
> Explain to the animal that is not about causing them pain.
If you aren't causing the animal pain, there is nothing to explain .
It is the knee-jerk reaction to the very thought of some training devices,
that the whole purpose of their existence is to cause pain, that I object
to. Any idiot can cause an animal pain, and it doesn't need any fancy
devices. There is mental pain too, which well-meaning "device free"
trainers can cause by mucking about with the animal's expectations. Again,
subjective experience will provide examples, and - intellect and language
apart - the experiential life of higher mammals at least is not so very much
unlike our own that entirely different rules can be expected to apply.
On the other hand, some of those so terrible training devices can be used in
skilled hands as a means of communication, rather than a means of causing
pain. It is not only stupid trainers who seem to be locked into the concept
that "punishment" is a necessary part of animal training.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 06:39:44.65
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Trisha Simonet wrote:
> Actually, children do bite, kick, shove, and punch when a conspecfic
> pokes them with pencils. For examples in the literature, see the
> studies done in Brazil on school children. ( I don't have the
> researcher's name right now, but she did the research about ten years
> ago.)
You don't have to go to Brazil. I teach school in California, and see such
behavior every day.
Some of my classes contain children with more or less serious, diagnosed
behavioral disturbances, usually combined with learning disabilities which
lead to frustration and anger. Some of my classes consist of "normal"
children, but even there I see a disturbing readiness to do violence.
This is in a very rural, small-town environment. What I hear from teacher
colleagues in urban schools is even more discouraging.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 07:28:52.66
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
Virginia Bowen wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think you're right about the bitless bridles. At least
the
> ones I've seen personally. I'm not sure I'm any more fond of them than I
am
> of bits.
>
> I would submit that yielding to pressure in the case of leg cues and neck
> reining however, while definitely -R, is not the same as bits, lunge
whips,
> dressage whips and spurs. I personally DO call for an end to those latter
> devices as they are far too frequently relied upon, and mis-used, as a
> "shortcut" to developing a real trust based communication and relationship
> with the horse.
>
> The former of these properly used is ideally a light pressure, while the
> latter tends to start out heavy and just get heavier.
My riding experience, such as it is, suggests that those heavy-handed
(or -footed ) methods will not lead to the desired result. There is a
reason why riding students have to "earn their spurs" before being allowed
to wear them .
Details can be found in any of the standard texts on riding instruction.
Ideally, the horse yields to almost imperceptible pressure e.g. of the leg,
or to minuscule shifts of the rider's weight. Likewise ideally, those aids
are so slight as to be invisible to the observer.
Communication, not coercion, and on a basis of trust.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander" 1-NOV-2005 07:45:14.32
To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
The interesting thing I find in the horse world is that they identify the
aids as being one of two types-natural aids and artificial aids. So the
natural aids are those that the rider "is" and the artificial aids are all
the things that the rider brings along. Shifting of weight, legs, arms,
hands, head and voice are all natural aids. Saddles, bridles, bits, spurs,
whips and martingales are artificial aids.
Before learning to use artificial aids, most riders must master the use of
the natural aids-at least in most of the programs I have been exposed to.
The result is usually a rider who uses the minimum level of force necessary
to get the horse to do what is desired. The riders who rely on whips to get
speed or drive from the horse, or spurs to gain compliance are the riders
who end up injured in the long run and then they cannot ride....a nicely
self policing system.
A good rider, in my experience will use the tool best suited to get the
results needed, with the least force necessary. Use more force with a horse
than you need, and you end up with a different than desired result.
Yes...there ARE brutal riders out there. But the vast majority of riders
are using their tools appropriately. When you use a dressage whip, if you
hit the horse, you are not going to get what you want...the dressage whip
should be used to touch the horse and to provide information about where to
place a foot, or how to collect himself. When it is used to spook the
horse, you don't get a compliant horse, you get a horse who does things
unpredictably.
As with e-collars and dogs, there are some out there who obtain the tool and
fool with it, but when used properly, I would argue that the artificial aids
are no more inhumane than the natural aids...just different.
Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
Dogs in the Park
Guelph, Ontario
sue@dogsinthepark.ca
www.dogsinthepark.ca
From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 1-NOV-2005 08:51:43.12
To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
In response to Celia: For the record, we can and do explain to the
animals about pain, and they willing voluntarily endure it if asked, to an
amazing degree, fully knowing what they are getting into. Before anyone
gets indignant, this is done for medical care and saves animals from being
anesthetized, which can be quite risky for some, so there is a very good
reason to ask them to endure pain. So, not all trainers who use pain in
training are unenlightened.
In response to John Burchard: Well spoken. I will propose that we deviate
from your position a bit. By definition, in technical terminology, a
punisher merely decreases the frequency of a behavior. I defy any trainer
to claim that they only increase the frequency of behavior. I maintain
that punisher is a illogical word to use for this effect, and recommend
"diminisher" which is more accurate and does not carry emotional baggage.
So, all trainers punish animals. However, many trainers seem unable to
understand that punishment does not have to involve pain. And, as you
point out, emotional pain can be worse than physical pain. And no
inanimate objects can be either good or bad. As you say, anything can be
used to inflict discomfort or pain.
For example, if I say to a woman, "You look SURPRISINGLY well! Green is
such a difficult color, isn't it?" , she may show significant discomfort
and displeasure, although every word is "nice". The lady may despise me,
but continue to wear green, so her behavior was not punished.
On the other hand, when my assistant forgot to pack a document and I said
to her, "You are the best assistant I have ever had, and I am doing so
much better now that we are working together, however, it was really bad
that I did not have that document when I needed it. How can I partner
with you so that this never happens again?", she thanked me and
enthusiastically engaged in making changes to prevent the recurrence of
that problem. The problem never occurred again, so, by definition, her
forgetful behavior was punished.
One of the most difficult requirements of practising good science seems to
be developing the ability to think logically rather than emotionally. It
really takes both to be an outstanding trainer, I have observed.
Best,
Kayce
> If you aren't causing the animal pain, there is nothing to explain .
>
> It is the knee-jerk reaction to the very thought of some training devices,
> that the whole purpose of their existence is to cause pain, that I object
> to. Any idiot can cause an animal pain, and it doesn't need any fancy
> devices. There is mental pain too, which well-meaning "device free"
> trainers can cause by mucking about with the animal's expectations.
> Again,
> subjective experience will provide examples, and - intellect and language
> apart - the experiential life of higher mammals at least is not so very
> much
> unlike our own that entirely different rules can be expected to apply.
>
> On the other hand, some of those so terrible training devices can be used
> in
> skilled hands as a means of communication, rather than a means of causing
> pain. It is not only stupid trainers who seem to be locked into the
> concept
> that "punishment" is a necessary part of animal training.
>
> John
> --
> Dr. John Burchard
> Tepe Gawra Salukis
> saluqi@ix.netcom.com
> http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
>
Kayce Cover
Syn Alia Training Systems
http://www.synalia.com
From: IN%"ewj@uiuc.edu" "E. Wayne Johnson" 1-NOV-2005 09:17:15.02
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
There seems to be a ditch on both sides of the road,
and men seem to want to run in either ditch
rather than stay on the track.
It seems that we have more than full measure of what some of my neighbors
describe as "wimpy liberal flakiness". At the risk of being labeled
as a "fascist chauvinist hillbilly redneck cracker"
(which would be inaccurate but might be close)--
I would say that although chastisement might seem cruel, and can be cruel
if excessive and injudicious, the effeminate and shrinking failure to
provide correction first at home
and also in the schools seems to be one of the roots of the crumbling
that John finds to be discouraging.
*
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
The rod and reproof give wisdom:
but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son:
but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men,
and with the stripes of the children of men:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Wayne
At 06:38 AM 11/1/2005, you wrote:
>Trisha Simonet wrote:
>
> > Actually, children do bite, kick, shove, and punch when a conspecfic
> > pokes them with pencils. For examples in the literature, see the
> > studies done in Brazil on school children. ( I don't have the
> > researcher's name right now, but she did the research about ten years
> > ago.)
>
>You don't have to go to Brazil. I teach school in California, and see such
>behavior every day.
>
>Some of my classes contain children with more or less serious, diagnosed
>behavioral disturbances, usually combined with learning disabilities which
>lead to frustration and anger. Some of my classes consist of "normal"
>children, but even there I see a disturbing readiness to do violence.
>
>This is in a very rural, small-town environment. What I hear from teacher
>colleagues in urban schools is even more discouraging.
>
>John
>--
>Dr. John Burchard
>Tepe Gawra Salukis
>saluqi@ix.netcom.com
>http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"clare@amerion.com" "Clare Lewandowski" 1-NOV-2005 10:45:52.94
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
I know a sport horse trainer who became interested in more positive based
training after seening a clicker exhibition. She had some very negative
responses to what she saw yet could see the potential. One negative response
was that a very barely controlled stallion was being 'taught' that if he
acted up and briefly stopped, he'd get a click and treat.
This trainer stays well informed of current trends in training. I've never
heard mention that any horse is trained to ride without cues that are not
some form of yielding to pressure.Even this quote from you >To reward your
horse after clicking, use the rein to gently
pull your horse's head to the side. Then lean forward and feed him.> The
horse is taught via yielding to the rein's pull to be fed the treat.
Hmm, let me make one ammendment to that,
I have heard of people who want a horse to move into the leg pressure
signaling which lead to take, mostly because a judge was less likely to see
the it and so think the rider was being more subtle. If a rider shifts
weight, the horse may need to move under the rider yet this is in part at
least to return the horse and rider to an equilibrium of balance. And the
outside leg may put a bit more contact on the horse signaling the horse to
move away from that leg which will move the horse under the rider. Like
driving a car, turn the wheel left and the car moves left, when the car is
headed the right way, the wheel is turned straight ahead and either the push
or pull of the hands on the wheel return to 'normal' straight ahead, no more
pressure from either side. It's a negative reward/signal system. keep going
left until the pressure to go left stops.
A friend of mine has known and learned from Pat Parelli for about 30 years.
Her daughter is a level 3 Parelli trainer who most often rides without horse
or bridle and can back her horse up using one hair of the tail to direct the
horse. The horse still yields to the very subtle pull of the hair. By
contrast, Kayce may train a horse to back into the touch of a target pole
moving away from the horse. Some behaviors may be easier to teach one way
than another. To ask a horse to move closer to you may be easier with moving
into a target pole or finger pressure, asking the horse to move away from
you easier with moving away from a lunge whip or finger pressure.
I do recall one person using Bridge and Target teaching her horse to move
towards a target pole while she rode him. He appeared to like this quite a
bit. I doubt that she did this out on a trail.
I've been trying to imagine how to ride or drive a horse without using some
method of communication that isn't yielding to some form of pressure, the
pressure being the method of communication. There is no way to ride a horse
without at least the weight and balance and leg sensations of the rider.
It's possible for very skilled horses and riders to dispence with headstalls
and reins but not the other sensations from the rider. Oxen can be driven
via voice commands and both visually and tactilely with the equivalent of a
target pole. But oxen are slow moving and the cuing of gee, haw etc. from
the little I've seen requires a lot of back and forth or recuing while using
tactile cues like reins or the target pole are smooth, keep going until the
pressure eases.
Even if a horse is taught to turn a head left by touching a target pole and
rewarded with a bridge or treat, if reins are used, at some point the
transfer from cuing with the target to cuing with the reins either direct or
indirect rein shifts from moving into the target to yielding to the rein.
If someone has developed a riding system that doesn't use aids in the
traditional manner, what is it like?
John, I missed the point on a lot of your post. I was asking if anyone has
developed a non traditional manner of riding a horse. Yes, there are more
people teaching a horse in part of the process with bridges and +R yet as I
said, riding still requires teaching the horse the -R yielding to aids. If
you haven't ridden a horse it might be hard to understand no matter what
your level of SATS certification is. Teaching a dog to yield to a leash and
using a leash as a way to signal in a manner similar to riding seem to be
out of favor except with perhaps guide dogs for the blind where tactile
systems are necessary.
With emphasis on high point in trial off leash or on leash loose leash
heeling is preferred, which means the dog must rely on visual or auditory
senses, using a leash to signal as softly and clearly as a rider can is
almost unheard of. As nearly world wide, there are leash laws, dogs in
public could benefit from handlers who develop good leash skills. I don't
have data on it, but I suspect it is mentally less tiring than having to
maintain visual awareness, like holding the hand of a child rather than
having to constantly keep an eye on it.
Clare
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
> Hello Clare,
> I have been following this thread with interest but have chosen
> to take no part till now.
>
> FROM CLARE:
> I know Kayce is
>> doing some very detailed work with her mare using +R only.
>
> MY RESPONSE:
> Kayce is not the only one. Even Kayce says that there is divergent
> evolution happening in behavioral work.
>
> http://www.on-target-training.com/
>
> Paste from site:
> Can On Target Training be used for work under saddle?
> Yes. The same principles apply. We recommend reinforcing horses from the
> saddle. Simply bridge the actions you like and reinforce accordingly. We
> ride with a lined fanny pack for our rewards and a clicker attached to a
> riding stick. To reward your horse after clicking, use the rein to gently
> pull your horse's head to the side. Then lean forward and feed him.
>
> END PASTE
>
> CLARE'S QUESTION:
> Is there anyone > who rides with cues that are not -R, yielding to the
> pressure on the bit,
>> moving away from a neck rein, leg pressure or other aids? If so I'd like
>> to > know how they do it.
>
> MY RESPONSE:
> I suggest you ask this woman.
> http://www.cremebrulee.be/inge/
> Who like me was and maybe still is a Kayce student.
>
> Kayce's work is excellent but she is not the only one working in the area.
> Nor is she the only one who has made significant contributions to working
> with bridging and targets to achieve results in many areas. I suggest you
> also research some of these people.
>
> Her work as it sometimes comes across, often due to people first coming
> across it being very enthusiastic about what they see, is not an instant
> panacea for everything in every circumstances. It is not snake oil.
>
> It isn't an instant cure all for everything. It is based on proven
> learning principles which have been known for a long time. Kayce didn't
> invent them.
>
> She has developed her own personal system to use these effectively. So
> have many others. They have just done it differently. Many of their
> systems can at times also produce equally dramatic results to what you
> have seen.
>
> Even Kayce doesn't claim that every use of her method produces the same
> results as speedily every time.
>
> I know Kayce won't mind my inputting this as we had the same conversation
> on the phone the day before yesterday and during this conversation Kayce
> said she didn't mean it to be coming across as an instant panacea for
> everything. Just as a system that is very often effective and in the right
> circumstances long lasting.
>
> Kayce also said that all claims made have to be seen in the context they
> were performed in. My addition (not as a total generalisation!!!)
>
> Incidently I am probably the trainer (at least dog trainer)in NZ with the
> most profficiency, experience and expertise in using Kayce's techniques.
> (The other one has moved back to Aussie Kayce). If I'm not these days then
> I am sure Kayce will correct me.
>
> I often use her techniques successfully, as I often use techniques from
> other trainers as well equally successfully in my behavour modification
> work, (it is a case of horses for courses) so I am not talking from an
> uneducated viewpoint.
>
> Regards John L.
> New Zealand.
>
>
From: IN%"whitebird@xtra.co.nz" "Whitebirds" 1-NOV-2005 11:06:05.13
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Wayne,
Sorry I'm not interested in biblical quotes which suggest beating a child with a rod will deliver his soul from hell. There are many sad stories of family violence justified by religious beliefs. It was 'fear the Lord' teachings that terrified me as a child and I stopped going to Church. Interestingly during a visit to the USA I stayed in a small rural town and went regularly to Church. It was the focus of their town and was full of warmth, support and affection which is what I believe the church should be not intimidation.
I have three teenagers. They have not been physically punished. They have been reared with love, affection and rules which involved consequences for their actions. Basically withdrawal of rewards. They aren't perfect, but they are reliable, straight, hard working kids and we are good friends.
Positive does not have to mean permissive and that is a mistake many people make, however discipline does not need to be physical.
Cheers
Diana
From: E. Wayne Johnson
Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
The rod and reproof give wisdom:
but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son:
but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men,
and with the stripes of the children of men:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards, and not sons.
From: IN%"whitebird@xtra.co.nz" "Whitebirds" 1-NOV-2005 11:15:48.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Agreed John.
Interesting research in the media right now on attention spans of children
due to excess screen watching. Apparently the increased editing speeds of
visual media are changing our kids' brains for the worse.
Having seen the sort of high energy, multi coloured foods and drinks kids
call school lunches - that's a bit of a worry too.
Cheers
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burchard"
> You don't have to go to Brazil. I teach school in California, and see
such
> behavior every day.
>
> Some of my classes contain children with more or less serious, diagnosed
> behavioral disturbances, usually combined with learning disabilities which
> lead to frustration and anger. Some of my classes consist of "normal"
> children, but even there I see a disturbing readiness to do violence.
>
> This is in a very rural, small-town environment. What I hear from teacher
> colleagues in urban schools is even more discouraging.
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 1-NOV-2005 11:37:36.70
To: IN%"whitebird@xtra.co.nz" "Whitebirds"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Thanks, Diana. That post was really scary, but I was too angry to respond.
CeAnn
Whitebirds wrote:
Wayne,
Sorry I'm not interested in biblical quotes which suggest beating a child with a rod will deliver his soul from hell. There are many sad stories of family violence justified by religious beliefs. It was 'fear the Lord' teachings that terrified me as a child and I stopped going to Church. Interestingly during a visit to the USA I stayed in a small rural town and went regularly to Church. It was the focus of their town and was full of warmth, support and affection which is what I believe the church should be not intimidation.
I have three teenagers. They have not been physically punished. They have been reared with love, affection and rules which involved consequences for their actions. Basically withdrawal of rewards. They aren't perfect, but they are reliable, straight, hard working kids and we are good friends.
Positive does not have to mean permissive and that is a mistake many people make, however discipline does not need to be physical.
Cheers
Diana
From: E. Wayne Johnson
Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
The rod and reproof give wisdom:
but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son:
but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men,
and with the stripes of the children of men:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards, and not sons.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"whitebird@xtra.co.nz" "Whitebirds" 1-NOV-2005 12:00:38.54
To:
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kayce Cover"
> In response to Celia: For the record, we can and do explain to the
> animals about pain, and they willing voluntarily endure it if asked, to an
> amazing degree, fully knowing what they are getting into. Before anyone
> gets indignant, this is done for medical care and saves animals from being
> anesthetized, which can be quite risky for some, so there is a very good
> reason to ask them to endure pain. So, not all trainers who use pain in
> training are unenlightened.
I think this is really interesting and very valuable. A skilled dog trainer
I know handles puppies roughly from the beginning (in a very structured way
:)) so that they learn to accept and enjoy that. Really important they learn
all sorts of skills for when things may not be perfect in their world.
> In response to John Burchard: Well spoken. I will propose that we deviate
> from your position a bit. By definition, in technical terminology, a
> punisher merely decreases the frequency of a behavior. I defy any trainer
> to claim that they only increase the frequency of behavior. I maintain
> that punisher is a illogical word to use for this effect, and recommend
> "diminisher" which is more accurate and does not carry emotional baggage.
As you say 'punishment' does have a lot of overtones, but you can rename
things all you like people will still alter interpretations to fit their
beliefs and we can also end up with numerous words which need translating
into a common definition.
> So, all trainers punish animals. However, many trainers seem unable to
> understand that punishment does not have to involve pain. And, as you
> point out, emotional pain can be worse than physical pain. And no
> inanimate objects can be either good or bad. As you say, anything can be
> used to inflict discomfort or pain.
The problem across the board is that many people resist using punishment
until they explode. So there is a whole heap of emotional reaction
incorporated and it goes on a lot longer than necessary and isn't really
about the initial issue at all. It's just about the bad day they've had or
whatever.......
> For example, if I say to a woman, "You look SURPRISINGLY well! Green is
> such a difficult color, isn't it?" , she may show significant discomfort
> and displeasure, although every word is "nice". The lady may despise me,
> but continue to wear green, so her behavior was not punished.
Or she may be crushed, burn all her greens and avoid the colour and you in
future. Your response impacted on a wider area than just 'the wearing of
green'.
> On the other hand, when my assistant forgot to pack a document and I said
> to her, "You are the best assistant I have ever had, and I am doing so
> much better now that we are working together, however, it was really bad
> that I did not have that document when I needed it. How can I partner
> with you so that this never happens again?", she thanked me and
> enthusiastically engaged in making changes to prevent the recurrence of
> that problem. The problem never occurred again, so, by definition, her
> forgetful behavior was punished.
Yup but her desirable behaviour was also heavily reinforced by your praise.
All too often I see intended punishers - whether emotional or not - fail to
be linked with reinforcement for the correct behaviour. That makes it very
hard for the student to learn the intended lesson and it also impacts on
relationships.
> One of the most difficult requirements of practising good science seems to
> be developing the ability to think logically rather than emotionally. It
> really takes both to be an outstanding trainer, I have observed.
You're absolutely right and thank goodness for science and its black and
whiteness.
It is hard not to be emotional about something you care deeply about and
believe in. We are seeing it here in these discussions but emotion can be
used constructively or destructively. We can say how we feel without
scorning others' feelings or beliefs. I'm trying to do that in my posts and
if I'm failing - I apologise.
Cheers
Diana
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 12:01:19.19
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
Sue Alexander wrote:
> The interesting thing I find in the horse world is that they identify the
> aids as being one of two types-natural aids and artificial aids. So the
> natural aids are those that the rider "is" and the artificial aids are all
> the things that the rider brings along. Shifting of weight, legs, arms,
> hands, head and voice are all natural aids. Saddles, bridles, bits, spurs,
> whips and martingales are artificial aids.
I think this is a very useful distinction, if (as intended) it causes the
rider to *think* about what he or she is doing.
There are also, I must say, a lot of myths in the popular understanding
about the way artificial aids work, and about the relative "severity" of
different versions of them. For example, a "bitless" bridle, many of which
operate by shutting off the horse's air supply, may not necessarily be
"milder" in its action than a bitted one; nor is a snaffle necessarily
"milder" than a curb bit. It all depends on the details ... and on the
rider's hand ... and not least on what the horse is accustomed to and
understands ...
> Before learning to use artificial aids, most riders must master the use of
> the natural aids-at least in most of the programs I have been exposed to.
> The result is usually a rider who uses the minimum level of force necessary
> to get the horse to do what is desired. The riders who rely on whips to get
> speed or drive from the horse, or spurs to gain compliance are the riders
> who end up injured in the long run and then they cannot ride....a nicely
> self policing system.
Well, yes, but sometimes rough on the horse ... again, there is a reason
conscientious riding instructors insist that a student really do "earn" the
spurs (etc.) before using them. That means, as you say, mastering the use of
the natural aids before learning the use of the artificial ones. In practice
most novices will be given a horse saddled and bridled, to be sure, to provide a
necessary minimum of confidence, but will be restricted in the use of reins and
stirrups until they have developed reasonable balance and reasonable
independence of the hands. Novices spend a lot of time riding "hands off" and
without stirrups, to develop balance which is the foundation of everything else.
It is impossible for a rider to give aids coherently while still struggling for
balance.
> A good rider, in my experience will use the tool best suited to get the
> results needed, with the least force necessary. Use more force with a horse
> than you need, and you end up with a different than desired result.
> Yes...there ARE brutal riders out there. But the vast majority of riders
> are using their tools appropriately. When you use a dressage whip, if you
> hit the horse, you are not going to get what you want...the dressage whip
> should be used to touch the horse and to provide information about where to
> place a foot, or how to collect himself. When it is used to spook the
> horse, you don't get a compliant horse, you get a horse who does things
> unpredictably.
>
> As with e-collars and dogs, there are some out there who obtain the tool and
> fool with it, but when used properly, I would argue that the artificial aids
> are no more inhumane than the natural aids...just different.
I would agree with that. When used properly they are extensions of the
communication system between rider and horse ... and it is most definitely a
two-way communication system. If you don't "listen" to what your horse is
telling you, you will never be an accomplished or even a comfortable rider.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 12:01:55.50
To: IN%"kc@synalia.com"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Kayce Cover wrote:
> In response to Celia: For the record, we can and do explain to the
> animals about pain, and they willing voluntarily endure it if asked, to an
> amazing degree, fully knowing what they are getting into. Before anyone
> gets indignant, this is done for medical care and saves animals from being
> anesthetized, which can be quite risky for some, so there is a very good
> reason to ask them to endure pain. So, not all trainers who use pain in
> training are unenlightened.
Of course not. There is also the consideration that in many contexts pain
is a rather subjective category. What is painful in one context may be
stimulating - and even actively sought - in another. Anyone involved for
instance in high-level physical activity - whether athletic competition,
musical performance or whatever - will realize that.
> In response to John Burchard: Well spoken. I will propose that we deviate
> from your position a bit. By definition, in technical terminology, a
> punisher merely decreases the frequency of a behavior. I defy any trainer
> to claim that they only increase the frequency of behavior. I maintain
> that punisher is a illogical word to use for this effect, and recommend
> "diminisher" which is more accurate and does not carry emotional baggage.
Thank you.
It was not really "my" position, and I very much agree with you about the
terminology. In fact I object strongly to the "definition" of "punishment"
as anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior. Many things can do
that, and by no means all of them could be called "punishment" even by the
most generous extension of the normal meaning of that word.
I do not think it is productive, in science, to create a specialized
vocabulary by exotic redefinition of the meanings of everyday words. This
particular redefinition seems to me to rest on a logical error. It is a
commonly observed effect of "punishment" (as that word is ordinarily
understood in the lay world) to decrease the frequency of the behavior to
which it is applied. Does it then really advance our understanding to
extend that observation beyond its logical boundary and say that anything
which decreases the frequency of a behavior should be called "punishment"?
I do not think so.
This is a famous and ancient logical fallacy. Crows are black. Crows are
birds. Are all birds therefore black?
All that redefinition accomplishes is to import a lot of negative emotional
ballast into a context where it really does not belong. That does not
advance understanding, and indeed may actively impede it.
> So, all trainers punish animals. However, many trainers seem unable to
> understand that punishment does not have to involve pain. And, as you
> point out, emotional pain can be worse than physical pain. And no
> inanimate objects can be either good or bad. As you say, anything can be
> used to inflict discomfort or pain.
I would say, rather, that all trainers "punish" animals (training typically
changes the frequencies of various behaviors ).
Our observations of "pain" are also subject to a similar logical fallacy as
cited above ...
> For example, if I say to a woman, "You look SURPRISINGLY well! Green is
> such a difficult color, isn't it?" , she may show significant discomfort
> and displeasure, although every word is "nice". The lady may despise me,
> but continue to wear green, so her behavior was not punished.
I submit, as above, that this usage of "punish" is inappropriate . The
everyday meaning of "punish" centers on the causation of displeasure, of an
unpleasant experience. That has certainly occurred in your example! How
the animal or person deals with that experience is one step farther along.
It is IMO not productive to conflate these two different things.
Skinner's shadow is longer than we imagine .
> On the other hand, when my assistant forgot to pack a document and I said
> to her, "You are the best assistant I have ever had, and I am doing so
> much better now that we are working together, however, it was really bad
> that I did not have that document when I needed it. How can I partner
> with you so that this never happens again?", she thanked me and
> enthusiastically engaged in making changes to prevent the recurrence of
> that problem. The problem never occurred again, so, by definition, her
> forgetful behavior was punished.
Again, it is the definition which is at fault .
> One of the most difficult requirements of practising good science seems to
> be developing the ability to think logically rather than emotionally. It
> really takes both to be an outstanding trainer, I have observed.
It takes both to be an outstanding scientist, too. It is not scientific to
notice only those data which happen to fit a pre-established set of
criteria. The most valuable data are often, even usually, those which do
NOT fit the anticipated scheme.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander" 1-NOV-2005 12:13:29.29
To: IN%"ewj@uiuc.edu" "E. Wayne Johnson", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
I am appalled. I am a woman and I resent the implication that MY gender (the reference to effeminate and shrinking failure to provide correction) has anything to do with the lack of structure that we see in SOME (not all) parts of society. I am also appalled that anyone would feel that this was the forum to use a biblical reference to support the use of corporal punishment in the name of structure and communication with another species. How utterly disrespectful of the text from which that came, the culture which developed it and the society within which we live and operate. I am not a member of any of the religions that would have developed this text-although I recognize it from my youth. I am here for ethology-and I am interested in the sentiment that permissiveness may lead to behavioural problems. What I am not interested in is a poorly thought out rant.
As a female dog trainer, I can tell you-my dogs are NOT in a permissive environment...they are in a structured safe environment that fosters learning. But that they are not in a permissive environment does NOT mean that they are handled in any way that would even resemble an environment that would support using any form of corporal punishment to train them. I am not against the use of aversives per se, but for the very most part, they are inelegant and unnecessary.
Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
Dogs in the Park
Guelph, Ontario
sue@dogsinthepark.ca
www.dogsinthepark.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: E. Wayne Johnson
To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
There seems to be a ditch on both sides of the road,
and men seem to want to run in either ditch
rather than stay on the track.
It seems that we have more than full measure of what some of my neighbors
describe as "wimpy liberal flakiness". At the risk of being labeled
as a "fascist chauvinist hillbilly redneck cracker"
(which would be inaccurate but might be close)--
I would say that although chastisement might seem cruel, and can be cruel
if excessive and injudicious, the effeminate and shrinking failure to provide correction first at home
and also in the schools seems to be one of the roots of the crumbling
that John finds to be discouraging.
*
From: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com" 1-NOV-2005 12:15:56.79
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
If there isn't a copy of the table of contents, you could see an on-
line list of speakers from the meeting (see the link below). As I
understand it (Dr. horwitz can correct if I am wrong), most of the
speakers and poster presenters supplied articles for the proceedings.
The link is:
www.dacvb.org
follow the IVBM link on the site for the 3 days of talks and posters.
Gerry
Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
Diplomate, ACVB
gflannigan@triad.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: DebHdvm@aol.com
Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary
Behavior Meeting
>
>
> In a message dated 10/31/2005 11:14:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> PSimonet@PeTalk.org writes:
>
> Is there a table of contents available for the proceedings? I
> would
> like to know who and what has been contributed before making a
> purchase.
>
>
> I do not have an electronic copy of the table of contents
> available, sorry.
>
> Debbie
>
> Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
> Veterinary Behavior Consultations
> 11469 Olive Blvd. #254
> St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
> Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
> e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
>
From: IN%"ewj@uiuc.edu" "E. Wayne Johnson" 1-NOV-2005 12:37:49.84
To: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
1. I am not surprised at the anger.
2. These "biblical references" have not merely stood the test of
time-- they are truth whether we like it or not.
3. this meaning -
effeminate
adj
1: having unsuitable feminine qualities [syn: emasculate, epicene,
cissy, sissified, sissyish, sissy]
2: characterized by excessive softness or self-indulgence; "an
effeminate civilization" [syn: weak]
At 12:10 PM 11/1/2005, Sue Alexander wrote:
>I am appalled. I am a woman and I resent the implication that MY
>gender (the reference to effeminate and shrinking failure to provide
>correction) has anything to do with the lack of structure that we
>see in SOME (not all) parts of society. I am also appalled that
>anyone would feel that this was the forum to use a biblical
>reference to support the use of corporal punishment in the name of
>structure and communication with another species. How utterly
>disrespectful of the text from which that came, the culture which
>developed it and the society within which we live and operate. I am
>not a member of any of the religions that would have developed this
>text-although I recognize it from my youth. I am here for
>ethology-and I am interested in the sentiment that permissiveness
>may lead to behavioural problems. What I am not interested in is a
>poorly thought out rant.
>
>As a female dog trainer, I can tell you-my dogs are NOT in a
>permissive environment...they are in a structured safe environment
>that fosters learning. But that they are not in a permissive
>environment does NOT mean that they are handled in any way that
>would even resemble an environment that would support using any form
>of corporal punishment to train them. I am not against the use of
>aversives per se, but for the very most part, they are inelegant and
>unnecessary.
>
>Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
>Dogs in the Park
>Guelph, Ontario
>sue@dogsinthepark.ca
>www.dogsinthepark.ca
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: E. Wayne Johnson
>To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:54 AM
>Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
>There seems to be a ditch on both sides of the road,
>and men seem to want to run in either ditch
>rather than stay on the track.
>It seems that we have more than full measure of what some of my neighbors
>describe as "wimpy liberal flakiness". At the risk of being labeled
>as a "fascist chauvinist hillbilly redneck cracker"
>(which would be inaccurate but might be close)--
>I would say that although chastisement might seem cruel, and can be cruel
>if excessive and injudicious, the effeminate and shrinking failure
>to provide correction first at home
>and also in the schools seems to be one of the roots of the crumbling
>that John finds to be discouraging.
>*
From: IN%"ckolus@larimer.org" "Cheryl Kolus" 1-NOV-2005 12:51:56.84
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: salivary cortisol measurements
Hello. I am interested in opinions and scientific references regarding
the accuracy of using salivary cortisol measurements to assess stress
levels, specifically in cats. Any input is greatly appreciated.
thanks,
Cheryl Kolus
Colorado, USA
From: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com" 1-NOV-2005 13:44:59.47
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking Problem
Hi,
Enough is enough folks - I think we have explored, dissected, debated,
deliberated and cogitated on this topic long enough. May I suggest for those who
wish to continue with this subject matter that they e-mail the participants
direct and lets move on to other interesting ethology issues. It was a good
debate, but it has now run its course for what is an International and diverse
open forum.
So lets draw a line underneath it and see if we can flag up another emotive
subject.
Regards
Gordon Butcher
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 14:03:02.81
To: IN%"kc@synalia.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
What you do, Kayce, seems to involve cognitive therapy for animals. And I
have usually said to dogs "no barking" in a direct manner while lightly
grasping their muzzle after applying a bark control collar. Maybe it just
makes me, a primate, feel better, but you know I think it seems to help both
in terms of the dogs acceptance of the device and its effectiveness. I am
planning a PhD (on bark control)commencing next year and may include this in
my protocol.
If you are coming to Australia again, please let me know because I would
like to do your course.
Jackie Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:46 AM
Subject: FW: Barking problem was (no subject)
-----Original Message-----
From: Whitebirds [mailto:whitebird@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:52 AM
Cc: Applied Ethology list
Subject: Re: Barking problem was (no subject)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kayce Cover"
> In response to Celia: For the record, we can and do explain to the
> animals about pain, and they willing voluntarily endure it if asked, to an
> amazing degree, fully knowing what they are getting into. Before anyone
> gets indignant, this is done for medical care and saves animals from being
> anesthetized, which can be quite risky for some, so there is a very good
> reason to ask them to endure pain. So, not all trainers who use pain in
> training are unenlightened.
I think this is really interesting and very valuable. A skilled dog trainer
I know handles puppies roughly from the beginning (in a very structured way
:)) so that they learn to accept and enjoy that. Really important they learn
all sorts of skills for when things may not be perfect in their world.
> In response to John Burchard: Well spoken. I will propose that we deviate
> from your position a bit. By definition, in technical terminology, a
> punisher merely decreases the frequency of a behavior. I defy any trainer
> to claim that they only increase the frequency of behavior. I maintain
> that punisher is a illogical word to use for this effect, and recommend
> "diminisher" which is more accurate and does not carry emotional baggage.
As you say 'punishment' does have a lot of overtones, but you can rename
things all you like people will still alter interpretations to fit their
beliefs and we can also end up with numerous words which need translating
into a common definition.
> So, all trainers punish animals. However, many trainers seem unable to
> understand that punishment does not have to involve pain. And, as you
> point out, emotional pain can be worse than physical pain. And no
> inanimate objects can be either good or bad. As you say, anything can be
> used to inflict discomfort or pain.
The problem across the board is that many people resist using punishment
until they explode. So there is a whole heap of emotional reaction
incorporated and it goes on a lot longer than necessary and isn't really
about the initial issue at all. It's just about the bad day they've had or
whatever.......
> For example, if I say to a woman, "You look SURPRISINGLY well! Green is
> such a difficult color, isn't it?" , she may show significant discomfort
> and displeasure, although every word is "nice". The lady may despise me,
> but continue to wear green, so her behavior was not punished.
Or she may be crushed, burn all her greens and avoid the colour and you in
future. Your response impacted on a wider area than just 'the wearing of
green'.
> On the other hand, when my assistant forgot to pack a document and I said
> to her, "You are the best assistant I have ever had, and I am doing so
> much better now that we are working together, however, it was really bad
> that I did not have that document when I needed it. How can I partner
> with you so that this never happens again?", she thanked me and
> enthusiastically engaged in making changes to prevent the recurrence of
> that problem. The problem never occurred again, so, by definition, her
> forgetful behavior was punished.
Yup but her desirable behaviour was also heavily reinforced by your praise.
All too often I see intended punishers - whether emotional or not - fail to
be linked with reinforcement for the correct behaviour. That makes it very
hard for the student to learn the intended lesson and it also impacts on
relationships.
> One of the most difficult requirements of practising good science seems to
> be developing the ability to think logically rather than emotionally. It
> really takes both to be an outstanding trainer, I have observed.
You're absolutely right and thank goodness for science and its black and
whiteness.
It is hard not to be emotional about something you care deeply about and
believe in. We are seeing it here in these discussions but emotion can be
used constructively or destructively. We can say how we feel without
scorning others' feelings or beliefs. I'm trying to do that in my posts and
if I'm failing - I apologise.
Cheers
Diana
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 14:12:54.61
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: salivary and faecal cortisol measurements
I am interested in anything anyone can tell me about faecal cortisol
measurements notwithstanding that I shall do a literature search later.
For example there must a a time lag between when the cortisol hits the blood
stream and when it is passed out in faeces, and saliva.
Can faeces be frozen and the cortisol levels remain the same? How acurate is
it compared with blood cortisol?
Salivary has been collected for cortisol measurement in dogs by placing
string/rope in their mouth then wringing it out. I would prefer to have
owners collect feces perhaps every 2nd day because it does not intefere with
the dog and create experimentally induced cortisol. I would then like to
have them freeze it for me so I can collect it in one go then take it away
and test it.
Jackie Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour)
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:45 AM
Subject: FW: salivary cortisol measurements
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryl Kolus [mailto:ckolus@larimer.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:48 AM
> To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: salivary cortisol measurements
>
> Hello. I am interested in opinions and scientific references regarding
> the accuracy of using salivary cortisol measurements to assess stress
> levels, specifically in cats. Any input is greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Cheryl Kolus
> Colorado, USA
>
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 1-NOV-2005 14:12:59.19
To: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
In a message dated 11/1/2005 12:17:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com writes:
If there isn't a copy of the table of contents, you could see an on-
line list of speakers from the meeting (see the link below). As I
understand it (Dr. horwitz can correct if I am wrong), most of the
speakers and poster presenters supplied articles for the proceedings.
The link is:
www.dacvb.org
follow the IVBM link on the site for the 3 days of talks and posters.
Gerry
Thanks Gerry, I should have thought of that!
Debbie
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
11469 Olive Blvd. #254
St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 14:17:24.90
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Fw: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
The listed supplier for Australia denies being the supplier for these
proceedings. Can anyone point me in the right direction? By the time this is
all sorted, they may be sold out!
Jackie Perkins
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:45 AM
Subject: FW: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior
Meeting
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com [mailto:GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:15 AM
> To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior
> Meeting
>
> If there isn't a copy of the table of contents, you could see an on-
> line list of speakers from the meeting (see the link below). As I
> understand it (Dr. horwitz can correct if I am wrong), most of the
> speakers and poster presenters supplied articles for the proceedings.
> The link is:
>
> www.dacvb.org
>
> follow the IVBM link on the site for the 3 days of talks and posters.
> Gerry
>
> Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
> Diplomate, ACVB
> gflannigan@triad.rr.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DebHdvm@aol.com
> Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:51 pm
> Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary
> Behavior Meeting
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/31/2005 11:14:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>
>> PSimonet@PeTalk.org writes:
>>
>> Is there a table of contents available for the proceedings? I
>> would
>> like to know who and what has been contributed before making a
>> purchase.
>>
>>
>> I do not have an electronic copy of the table of contents
>> available, sorry.
>>
>> Debbie
>>
>> Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
>> Veterinary Behavior Consultations
>> 11469 Olive Blvd. #254
>> St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
>> Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
>> e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 1-NOV-2005 14:47:24.76
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List"
CC:
Subj: barking boxer
Michael, which brand and make of collar did the boxer use, and what part of the world are you in?
Dr Jacqueline Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
From: IN%"SARCRNA@aol.com" 1-NOV-2005 15:13:17.79
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
In a message dated 11/1/2005 10:02:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
saluqi@ix.netcom.com writes:
For example, a "bitless" bridle, many of which
operate by shutting off the horse's air supply,
This is interesting--could you give a link to the particular type of bridle
you are referring to? The bitless bridles I use and have seen used by
endurance horse people do not work that way. It would be counter productive to
occlude an airway when racing.
Susan Martinez
From: IN%"ngourkow@spca.bc.ca" "Nadine Gourkow" 1-NOV-2005 18:52:10.76
To: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
I have followed the link and still cannot find an order form for the proceedings. Does anyone have more specific instructions?
_____
Nadine Gourkow
Animal Welfare Manager
BC SPCA Administration Centre
1245 East 7th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 1R1
Ph. 604.709.6714 Fax. 604.681 7022
www.spca.bc.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com [mailto:GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:15 AM
> To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International
> Veterinary Behavior
> Meeting
>
>
> If there isn't a copy of the table of contents, you could see an on-
> line list of speakers from the meeting (see the link below). As I
> understand it (Dr. horwitz can correct if I am wrong), most of the
> speakers and poster presenters supplied articles for the proceedings.
> The link is:
>
> www.dacvb.org
>
> follow the IVBM link on the site for the 3 days of talks and posters.
> Gerry
>
> Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
> Diplomate, ACVB
> gflannigan@triad.rr.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DebHdvm@aol.com
> Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:51 pm
> Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary
> Behavior Meeting
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/31/2005 11:14:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> >
> > PSimonet@PeTalk.org writes:
> >
> > Is there a table of contents available for the proceedings? I
> > would
> > like to know who and what has been contributed before making a
> > purchase.
> >
> >
> > I do not have an electronic copy of the table of contents
> > available, sorry.
> >
> > Debbie
> >
> > Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
> > Veterinary Behavior Consultations
> > 11469 Olive Blvd. #254
> > St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
> > Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
> > e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 1-NOV-2005 19:31:04.95
To: IN%"ngourkow@spca.bc.ca", IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
The information below is all I was given.
Below is information for ordering copies of the Proceedings from the 5th
International Veterinary Behavior Meeting that took place in Minneapolis in July
2005.
Title
Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine: Papers
presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
Purdue University Press
ISBN # 1-55753-409-8
For those living in the United States or Canada the book can be ordered at
1-800-247-6553.
I also have been provided a list of international representatives for
specific
areas below. Customers can contact their local representative.
INTERNATIONAL SALES CONTACTS
Africa, Latin & South America, India - Cranbury International
Tel. 802-223-6565; eatkin@cranburyinternational.com
Australia & New Zealand - Footprint Books Pty Ltd.
Tel. (+61) 02 9997-3973; sales@footprint.com
Canada - Scholarly Book Services, Inc.
Tel. 1-800-847-9736; Customerservice@sbookscan.com
Southwest Asia, Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan
- APAC Publishers
Tel. +65 6844 7333; sgohapac@singnet.com.sg
Japan - United Publishers Services Limited; Tel. (03) 3291 4541
UK, Europe, Israel, Middle East - The Eurospan Group
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7240 0856; info@eurospan.com
If this will not work, request the book by sending an email (without
payment information) to orders@bookmasters.com
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
11469 Olive Blvd. #254
St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 20:12:25.67
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
"Whitebirds" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kayce Cover"
>
> > In response to Celia: For the record, we can and do explain to the
> > animals about pain, and they willing voluntarily endure it if asked, to an
> > amazing degree, fully knowing what they are getting into. Before anyone
> > gets indignant, this is done for medical care and saves animals from being
> > anesthetized, which can be quite risky for some, so there is a very good
> > reason to ask them to endure pain. So, not all trainers who use pain in
> > training are unenlightened.
>
> I think this is really interesting and very valuable. A skilled dog trainer
> I know handles puppies roughly from the beginning (in a very structured way
> :)) so that they learn to accept and enjoy that. Really important they learn
> all sorts of skills for when things may not be perfect in their world.
It is instructive to observe how their own mother deals with her puppies. It is
far from random "horseplay." There is a great deal of very purposeful and
focussed instruction involved. For instance, specific techniques for taking
down prey animals are taught by the mother, and practiced by the puppies on each
other and on their mother. The basic patterns are certainly genetic, but it
takes a lot of practice to refine them into full functionality ...
[snip]
> As you say 'punishment' does have a lot of overtones, but you can rename
> things all you like people will still alter interpretations to fit their
> beliefs and we can also end up with numerous words which need translating
> into a common definition.
Indeed; but it doesn't help, either, if we make our definitions unnecessarily
arcane and counterintuitive.
> > So, all trainers punish animals. However, many trainers seem unable to
> > understand that punishment does not have to involve pain. And, as you
> > point out, emotional pain can be worse than physical pain. And no
> > inanimate objects can be either good or bad. As you say, anything can be
> > used to inflict discomfort or pain.
>
> The problem across the board is that many people resist using punishment
> until they explode. So there is a whole heap of emotional reaction
> incorporated and it goes on a lot longer than necessary and isn't really
> about the initial issue at all. It's just about the bad day they've had or
> whatever.......
That is not animal training, that is using the animal as a "lightning rod."
Most serious animal trainers avoid that like the plague.
> > For example, if I say to a woman, "You look SURPRISINGLY well! Green is
> > such a difficult color, isn't it?" , she may show significant discomfort
> > and displeasure, although every word is "nice". The lady may despise me,
> > but continue to wear green, so her behavior was not punished.
>
> Or she may be crushed, burn all her greens and avoid the colour and you in
> future. Your response impacted on a wider area than just 'the wearing of
> green'.
And in either case that was the "post-processing" of the event ... which it is
not useful or enlightening to conflate with the event itself.
> > On the other hand, when my assistant forgot to pack a document and I said
> > to her, "You are the best assistant I have ever had, and I am doing so
> > much better now that we are working together, however, it was really bad
> > that I did not have that document when I needed it. How can I partner
> > with you so that this never happens again?", she thanked me and
> > enthusiastically engaged in making changes to prevent the recurrence of
> > that problem. The problem never occurred again, so, by definition, her
> > forgetful behavior was punished.
>
> Yup but her desirable behaviour was also heavily reinforced by your praise.
> All too often I see intended punishers - whether emotional or not - fail to
> be linked with reinforcement for the correct behaviour. That makes it very
> hard for the student to learn the intended lesson and it also impacts on
> relationships.
See above, conflating different and distinct stages of the process ...
> > One of the most difficult requirements of practising good science seems to
> > be developing the ability to think logically rather than emotionally. It
> > really takes both to be an outstanding trainer, I have observed.
>
> You're absolutely right and thank goodness for science and its black and
> whiteness.
The difficulty is that science, especially behavioral science, is not always
black and white. We must, however, always at least strive for *clarity* ...
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 1-NOV-2005 20:12:25.98
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Diana ("Whitebirds") wrote:
> Agreed John.
>
> Interesting research in the media right now on attention spans of children
> due to excess screen watching. Apparently the increased editing speeds of
> visual media are changing our kids' brains for the worse.
"Editing speeds" is a nice euphemism for a barrage of sales-oriented
pseudo-information which will in short order overload *anybody's* input system,
let alone that of a child who still needs to process a lot of that input as new
and relatively unfamiliar material. That is the intention, or one part of it -
so to saturate the input system that the person becomes a highly suggestible
"consumer" ... its effect on the children is IMO catastrophic, going well beyond
shortening of the already short attention span.
> Having seen the sort of high energy, multi coloured foods and drinks kids
> call school lunches - that's a bit of a worry too.
Bought and paid for by school funds, ultimately by the taxpayer. School
breakfasts, loaded with sugar. School lunches, ditto in most cases. Teaching
pre-school for a while, I came to dread the sugar breakfasts ... because of
course half an hour after ingesting all that sugar the kids are bouncing off the
ceiling. Not to mention laying the foundation for a lifelong instability of the
carbohydrate processing metabolism, predisposing to obesity and to eating as
endorphin generator, etc. etc.
I have in my hand at this moment a bottle I picked up in the school parking lot
a few weeks ago. This bottle originally contained 16 ounces of "Big Juicy -
Blue Raspberry Drink" with the following ingredients, as usual in descending
order of quantity: "water, high fructose corn syrup, pear juice concentrate,
citric acid, artificial flavor, sucralose, blue 1." In other words, colored
sugar water, and not a raspberry in sight. On that day each kid in my classes
consumed at least two such bottles (variously flavored) during the day.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 1-NOV-2005 23:01:03.42
To: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
Thank you Gerry.
Trisha
On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:14 AM, GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com wrote:
> If there isn't a copy of the table of contents, you could see an on-
> line list of speakers from the meeting (see the link below). As I
> understand it (Dr. horwitz can correct if I am wrong), most of the
> speakers and poster presenters supplied articles for the proceedings.
> The link is:
>
> www.dacvb.org
>
> follow the IVBM link on the site for the 3 days of talks and posters.
> Gerry
>
> Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
> Diplomate, ACVB
> gflannigan@triad.rr.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DebHdvm@aol.com
> Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:51 pm
> Subject: Re: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary
> Behavior Meeting
>
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/31/2005 11:14:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>
>> PSimonet@PeTalk.org writes:
>>
>> Is there a table of contents available for the proceedings? I
>> would
>> like to know who and what has been contributed before making a
>> purchase.
>>
>>
>> I do not have an electronic copy of the table of contents
>> available, sorry.
>>
>> Debbie
>>
>> Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
>> Veterinary Behavior Consultations
>> 11469 Olive Blvd. #254
>> St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
>> Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
>> e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 1-NOV-2005 23:19:27.13
To: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com"
CC: IN%"ngourkow@spca.bc.ca", IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Proceedings from the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
I just ordered a copy of the proceedings from amazon.com for $62.95
(US). It was effortless.
Trisha
On Nov 1, 2005, at 5:30 PM, DebHdvm@aol.com wrote:
> The information below is all I was given.
>
> Below is information for ordering copies of the Proceedings from
> the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting that took place
> in Minneapolis in July 2005.
>
> Title
> Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine:
> Papers presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting
>
> Purdue University Press
> ISBN # 1-55753-409-8
>
> For those living in the United States or Canada the book can be
> ordered at 1-800-247-6553.
>
> I also have been provided a list of international representatives
> for specific
> areas below. Customers can contact their local representative.
>
>
> INTERNATIONAL SALES CONTACTS
>
> Africa, Latin & South America, India - Cranbury International
> Tel. 802-223-6565; eatkin@cranburyinternational.com
>
> Australia & New Zealand - Footprint Books Pty Ltd.
> Tel. (+61) 02 9997-3973; sales@footprint.com
>
> Canada - Scholarly Book Services, Inc.
> Tel. 1-800-847-9736; Customerservice@sbookscan.com
>
> Southwest Asia, Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan
> - APAC Publishers
> Tel. +65 6844 7333; sgohapac@singnet.com.sg
>
> Japan - United Publishers Services Limited; Tel. (03) 3291 4541
>
> UK, Europe, Israel, Middle East - The Eurospan Group
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7240 0856; info@eurospan.com
>
>
> If this will not work, request the book by sending an email (without
> payment information) to orders@bookmasters.com
>
> Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
> Veterinary Behavior Consultations
> 11469 Olive Blvd. #254
> St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
> Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
> e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 2-NOV-2005 00:08:37.00
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: inhibit ing agression precursors
To rephrase (and check my understanding) - if you inhibit the growling behavior, the dog may still bite without warning and that's probably more dangerous in the long run?
Yes you have it in a nutshell Hebe.
I am not saying that this will always happen but that by suppressing the precursors you increase the potential for it to happen way way way up. IMO opinion not a wise move. Especially when you realise that the average person (not an observant trainer or owner) without training has great difficulty in recognising many of the more subtle precursors to an agressive act. They can at least see and recognise these.
To expand further on my last point above IME very often before things have got to this state there have already been many indicators that the dog is becoming aroused or unhappy about the situation that have been missed and some situation or animal management action should have been forthcoming way before this time.
I think Dr John and Diana both said it in earlier posts in a slightly different context and making different points that all (animal) training is about cross species communication no matter what system you are using or attempting to.
Also that communication cross species should never be a one way thing.
To put this in my words in the context of this situation we are talking about we should *always* be aware as much as we can of how our animal is feeling about a situation.
This should then be a cause an appropriate response from us. The growling or barking dog in this situation is attempting to communicate something.
What our response will be will of course differ from situation to situation. But IMO we either just totally ignore or else always suppress these indicators/precursors at our or someone else's peril.
Regards John L.
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 2-NOV-2005 00:12:32.95
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: sorry peoples
Apologies for not trimming my last post properly. I didn't notice before hitting send. As a list owner my self I know what bad form this is.
John L.
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 2-NOV-2005 02:21:06.53
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
>I've never
> heard mention that any horse is trained to ride without cues that are not > some form of yielding to pressure.
Hi Clare,
When Kayce and others who use bridges and targetting R+ type techniques under saddle are using them they teach move TOWARDS the pressure/The target and you will be reinforced not give to it move AWAY and the pressure will be eased.
This I think you will agree makes huge difference in the concept of how to use either natural aids as in your body or artificial as in the target what ever it may be.
Even this quote from you >To reward your
> horse after clicking, use the rein to gently
> pull your horse's head to the side. Then lean forward and feed him.> The
> horse is taught via yielding to the rein's pull to be fed the treat.
I agree with you here but, while it is pure supposition on my part as I am not trained by or have spoken to the writers, I suggest that this wouldn't need to happen more than a couple of times and the horse would always understand where the primary reinforcer was to be found so long as the place was always constant. Indeed I think that this could be taught differently. In a more R+ way. I am sure Kayce or Inge could think of a way. I think I can as well perhaps by using a fadable extender pole. Not that I am suggesting that there is anything wrong with the way it has been taught.
If
> you haven't ridden a horse it might be hard to understand no matter what
> your level of SATS certification is.
Actually Clare it isn't. I'll give you a graphic example at my own expense out of my own experience.
My older dog Anna I taught to "smile" by using my fingers to teach her to pull her lips away from them. In the same fashion as horses are taught to move give to the slightest pressure. I had absolutely huge problems trying to fade that cue. I asked Kayce about it and the very first question she asked me to make me think was "did you teach her to give to the pressure/move away from it or did you use a target and teach her to move towards it?"
I had created a solid cue of she needed the fingers to TOUCH her to give her the signal of what I wanted. So no matter how hard I tried to fade that cue to no touch needed then back to just a hand signal it wasn't ever going to happen.
If I had been using the target technique as it was meant to be used she would have never needed me to touch her to begin with and so we wouldn't have got the rigid pattern which I couldn't alter.
Teaching a dog to yield to a leash and
> using a leash as a way to signal in a manner similar to riding seem to be
> out of favor except with perhaps guide dogs for the blind where tactile
> systems are necessary.
> With emphasis on high point in trial off leash or on leash loose leash
> heeling is preferred, which means the dog must rely on visual or auditory > senses, using a leash to signal as softly and clearly as a rider can is > almost unheard of.
I'm not sure quite where you are going here Clare but it is unnecessary as dogs first sense is actually visual and they work very extensively from body language and movement. They communicate with each other and other animals by this means so why not use these means to communicate to them what we want. It's the easiest for them to understand.
When heeling in higher class competitions my dog works exclusively off my body whether on or off lead.
Sure I use a common system of communication between us as in bridges and targetting to give her the information about what I want her to do in the teaching stages but it helps if you relate that teaching as much as possible to the way they operate instinctively. The same as I'm sure it would for horses who have different behavioural responses to dog of course. It's about meeting them half way and making it even easier for them.
As nearly world wide, there are leash laws, dogs in
> public could benefit from handlers who develop good leash skills.
Certainly I agree here Clare but it depends on how you define having good leash skills. In my style of teaching and handling the lead is not a teaching device it is a safety device.
Much of our teaching these days is also "hands off" as well. But then I think many other dog trainers are as well.
I don't > have data on it, but I suspect it is mentally less tiring than having to > maintain visual awareness, like holding the hand of a child rather than > having to constantly keep an eye on it.
I am holding my dogs hand as in holding the leash but this doesn't mean that I have to use the lead exclusively to guide any more than I have to exclusively use my hand to guide a child. As for the trainer having to exert more effort using my methods I have absolutely no problem with this if it makes it easier for the animal.
Regards John L.
From: IN%"Yvonne.vanhierden@wur.nl" "Hierden, Yvonne van" 2-NOV-2005 06:01:06.36
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: How to measure satisfaction of needs?
Dear all,
In the Netherlands, the pig industry is developing a housing system for
fattening pigs, which (at least that is the claim) will satisfy all
needs of fattening pigs and will hence guarantee optimal welfare for
pigs.
When asked to write a plan to study these claims, I wondered whether I
know how to do it correctly. Our research group has identified the
following needs for fattening pigs.
Need Environmental demands
1. Movement Division into different function-area's (resting,
eating, defecating, exploring), in order to guarantee sufficient
movement.
2. Exploration Challenging, variable environment. Stimulate explorative
behaviour (e.g. foraging). Enable synchronisation of behaviour.
3. Saturation Feed and water freely accessible. Avoid competition over
feed and water. Enable synchronisation of feeding and drinking.
4. Excretion Dunging area, rough floor and safe place.
5. Health No sickness or damage
6. Safety Hiding places, reliable management. Controllability and
predictability for the animal (no unexpected threats)
7. Social contact Create stable groups. No social isolation.
Enable synchronisation of feeding and resting
8. Thermoregulation Climate control. Possibilities for
thermoregulation, within thermoneutral zone.
9. Comfort Behaviour Scratching possibilities
10. Rest Comfortable resting space, cover and overview.
Sufficient space for synchronised, side by side resting.
I am just wondering 'when are needs satisfied and when are they not?'
I could use some information/help on the following questions:
1. What is the use/value of analysing the time budgets of pigs in order
to quantify the level of satisfaction of their needs? In other words is
information on time-budgets of pigs useful if you want to answer the
question whether a need is satisfied?
2. What is the use/value of quantifying the use of space of pigs in
order to quantify the level of satisfaction of needs?
3. What is the use/value of measuring vices/skin lesions/tail-damage,
etc. in order to quantify the level of satisfaction of needs
4. What is the value of gathering information on the objects of
explorative behaviour to quantify the level of satisfaction of the need
to explore?
Thanks in advance,
Yvonne
Dr. ir. Yvonne van Hierden
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR
Animal Resources Development
PO Box 65
8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
phone +31 320 238 171
fax +31 320 238 094
Visiting adress: Edelhertweg 15, Lelystad
e-mail yvonne.vanhierden@wur.nl
internet www.asg.wur.nl
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 2-NOV-2005 07:05:34.35
To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
John Burchard wrote:
It is instructive to observe how their own mother deals with her puppies. It is
far from random "horseplay." There is a great deal of very purposeful and
focussed instruction involved.
John
That is so on target for me and one of my coyotes, right now.
Morrell came to me two years ago. She had MBD. She had three or four fractures in her hips and legs. Her bones were very fragile.
Therefore, I wasn't able to give her some of the lessons she would have learned from her siblings. The most important one being to touch her Inguinal area to get her to roll onto her back in a submissive position so that I would be over her. Her bones were just too fragile.
The two of us are paying for that, now. She is very aggressive and dominant towards me. Which is depriving the two of us of being able to interact. She is two years old now and has had a male puppy with her for the last year. As he is growing and giving her these lesson, now, she is becoming less aggressive towards me, but still will only allow me in her pen, to give her food. (She is fine with my volunteer) Otherwise, she meets me at her gate, standing tall and making eye contact. No barking, no growling, just the "get the hell out of my face" stare, which doesn't defuse when I avert my yes. Progress for us is very slow. ( At least, she isn't attacking the gate while I am standing their.
As you have probably guessed, she is the most bonded to humans of all of my coyotes, so this behavior is not a complete surprise to me.
CeAnn
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 2-NOV-2005 07:22:21.64
To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Barking problem was (no subject)
Hi Cecilia,
It is possible to redefine your relationship with this coyote, and it does
not have to take a long time to do. However, it is a more advanced skill
and is not covered very completely in the manual I wrote. However, there
is something about it under "teaching uncomfortable animals". Often, when
I start with exotics, they don't like me or my food, and yet it is
possible to change their attitudes and get them both eating and working in
relatively short order. For your coyote, that work might comprise staying
on a station target while you come in to feed, coming to the side of the
pen and aligning her body so that you can examine or give shots, etc,
allowing you to put fly ointment on her ears...
Best wishes,
Kayce
>
>
> John Burchard wrote:
>
> It is instructive to observe how their own mother deals with her puppies.
> It is
> far from random "horseplay." There is a great deal of very purposeful and
> focussed instruction involved.
>
>
> John
>
> That is so on target for me and one of my coyotes, right now.
>
> Morrell came to me two years ago. She had MBD. She had three or four
> fractures in her hips and legs. Her bones were very fragile.
>
> Therefore, I wasn't able to give her some of the lessons she would have
> learned from her siblings. The most important one being to touch her
> Inguinal area to get her to roll onto her back in a submissive position
> so that I would be over her. Her bones were just too fragile.
>
> The two of us are paying for that, now. She is very aggressive and
> dominant towards me. Which is depriving the two of us of being able to
> interact. She is two years old now and has had a male puppy with her
> for the last year. As he is growing and giving her these lesson, now,
> she is becoming less aggressive towards me, but still will only allow me
> in her pen, to give her food. (She is fine with my volunteer)
> Otherwise, she meets me at her gate, standing tall and making eye
> contact. No barking, no growling, just the "get the hell out of my
> face" stare, which doesn't defuse when I avert my yes. Progress for us
> is very slow. ( At least, she isn't attacking the gate while I am
> standing their.
>
> As you have probably guessed, she is the most bonded to humans of all of
> my coyotes, so this behavior is not a complete surprise to me.
>
> CeAnn
>
>
>
>
> CeAnn Lambert
> Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
> www.coyoterescue.org
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
Kayce Cover
Syn Alia Training Systems
http://www.synalia.com
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 2-NOV-2005 07:34:40.65
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
Susan Martinez wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2005 10:02:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> saluqi@ix.netcom.com writes:
> For example, a "bitless" bridle, many of which
> operate by shutting off the horse's air supply,
> This is interesting--could you give a link to the particular type of bridle
> you are referring to? The bitless bridles I use and have seen used by
> endurance horse people do not work that way. It would be counter productive
to
> occlude an airway when racing.
Yes indeed, and I would be quite astonished if endurance racers used anything
that worked on that principle .
Perhaps I should have said "some." There are ones that work on the soft portion
of the nose, which compresses the airway, and others which apply leverage higher
up, and for a well-ridden horse you might not need "leverage" particularly at
all.
I am not expert in these things and would have to scrabble around considerably
to find names, etc., for the things I have seen more or less incidentally and
sometimes many years ago.
I know that's an unsatisfactory answer but it's the best I can do short of
embarking on a research project into "bitless bridles" . I would welcome
enlightenment from someone better informed.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"D.Lee@mcri.ac.uk" "Diane Lee" 2-NOV-2005 08:00:51.23
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
I do not know of any correctly fitted bitless bridle which occludes the
airway in any way. Bridles working through pressure to the nose are fitted
ABOVE the soft cartilage. I can only think that examples which you have seen
are fitted incorrectly, whether on purpose or not. So, to say that many
operate by shutting off air supply is incorrect, since this is not their
design. It is user error if this occurs, although I must say I've never seen
it myself, as it's immediately visible to the eye that the bridle is
incorrectly fitted.
For the uninformed:
Sidepull - glorified headcollar really. Has two reins connected to what is
normally a padded noseband. In theory the 'kindest', but also most open to
misuse in my opinion, by fitting too low and thus causing occlusion of the
airway as John describes. NB though - this is INCORRECT use!
Cross-over - eg. Dr Cook. This works by the reins crossing over under the
jaw and passing through to rings on the noseband. More pressure than the
sidepull, as the crossing reins apply pressure underneath the jaw as well as
pulling on the noseband.
Hackamore - seen by some as most 'severe', as it applies pressure to the
noseband, but mostly to the poll.
Can't think of other types off the top of my head, that wouldn't group into
the above.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: 02 November 2005 13:29
To: Applied Ethology list
Subject: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
Susan Martinez wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2005 10:02:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> saluqi@ix.netcom.com writes:
> For example, a "bitless" bridle, many of which
> operate by shutting off the horse's air supply,
> This is interesting--could you give a link to the particular type of
bridle
> you are referring to? The bitless bridles I use and have seen used by
> endurance horse people do not work that way. It would be counter
productive
to
> occlude an airway when racing.
Yes indeed, and I would be quite astonished if endurance racers used
anything
that worked on that principle .
Perhaps I should have said "some." There are ones that work on the soft
portion
of the nose, which compresses the airway, and others which apply leverage
higher
up, and for a well-ridden horse you might not need "leverage" particularly
at
all.
I am not expert in these things and would have to scrabble around
considerably
to find names, etc., for the things I have seen more or less incidentally
and
sometimes many years ago.
I know that's an unsatisfactory answer but it's the best I can do short of
embarking on a research project into "bitless bridles" . I would welcome
enlightenment from someone better informed.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 2-NOV-2005 08:01:00.39
To: IN%"Yvonne.vanhierden@wur.nl" "Hierden, Yvonne van", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: How to measure satisfaction of needs?
Yvonne and others,
This is an extremely interesting question, which goes from science to philosophy of science and back again - it is not far from asking for the complete measure of animal welfare. Wow. No, I'm not questioning you in asking it - you really should. The pig industry obviously wants to sell the idea that they know the answer. Scientists have to come up with a relevant answer to that - whether we believe the idea is correct or not. I know there are both pig industry people and others on this list, but the question came from a scientist, and I'm a scientist, so that's the route I will take.
Now, how do we measure the satisfaction of needs? Do we even have the concept of a measurement of satisfaction of needs? One problem is, there's not even consensus over how to define needs. The neat and tidy idea of needs like little boxes you can open and close is attractive for policy-making, but exactly the reductionist and categoric properties make it difficult for scientists to accept as it will inevitably reduce the complex reality to something far more simple than we like.
There are some really basic needs, which if not satisfied will simply lead to the death of the animal. These needs are relatively easy to define, and they tend to be physiological rather than behavioural. But even for these basic needs, does survival equal satisfaction of needs? The milk substitute for dairy calves supposedly satisfies the nutritional need of these calves - but a calf raised on "real" cow's milk look disturbingly different from one raised on substitute. It's easy to say here where a need is NOT satisfied - a calf given only water will die - but how much satisfaction do you require for satisfaction?
Yvonne, your question is reason for a real discussion - let's hope it generates that!
Best regards,
Anna
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 02-11-2005 at 12:59 Hierden, Yvonne van wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>In the Netherlands, the pig industry is developing a housing system for
>fattening pigs, which (at least that is the claim) will satisfy all
>needs of fattening pigs and will hence guarantee optimal welfare for
>pigs.
>When asked to write a plan to study these claims, I wondered whether I
>know how to do it correctly. Our research group has identified the
>following needs for fattening pigs.
>
>Need Environmental demands
>1. Movement Division into different function-area's (resting,
>eating, defecating, exploring), in order to guarantee sufficient
>movement.
>2. Exploration Challenging, variable environment. Stimulate explorative
>behaviour (e.g. foraging). Enable synchronisation of behaviour.
>3. Saturation Feed and water freely accessible. Avoid competition over
>feed and water. Enable synchronisation of feeding and drinking.
>4. Excretion Dunging area, rough floor and safe place.
>5. Health No sickness or damage
>6. Safety Hiding places, reliable management. Controllability and
>predictability for the animal (no unexpected threats)
>7. Social contact Create stable groups. No social isolation.
>Enable synchronisation of feeding and resting
>8. Thermoregulation Climate control. Possibilities for
>thermoregulation, within thermoneutral zone.
>9. Comfort Behaviour Scratching possibilities
>10. Rest Comfortable resting space, cover and overview.
>Sufficient space for synchronised, side by side resting.
>
>
>I am just wondering 'when are needs satisfied and when are they not?'
>
>I could use some information/help on the following questions:
>
>1. What is the use/value of analysing the time budgets of pigs in order
>to quantify the level of satisfaction of their needs? In other words is
>information on time-budgets of pigs useful if you want to answer the
>question whether a need is satisfied?
>2. What is the use/value of quantifying the use of space of pigs in
>order to quantify the level of satisfaction of needs?
>3. What is the use/value of measuring vices/skin lesions/tail-damage,
>etc. in order to quantify the level of satisfaction of needs
>4. What is the value of gathering information on the objects of
>explorative behaviour to quantify the level of satisfaction of the need
>to explore?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Yvonne
>
>
>
>Dr. ir. Yvonne van Hierden
>Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR
>Animal Resources Development
>PO Box 65
>8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
>phone +31 320 238 171
>fax +31 320 238 094
>Visiting adress: Edelhertweg 15, Lelystad
>e-mail yvonne.vanhierden@wur.nl
>internet www.asg.wur.nl
Dr Anna Olsson
Researcher
Animal Behaviour and Welfare - Bioethics
http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18
Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC
Rua Campo Alegre 823
4150-180 Porto, Portugal
Phone +351 22 607 4900
Fax +351 22 6099157
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 2-NOV-2005 13:37:43.34
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: How to measure satisfaction of needs?
Anna Olsson wrote:
> This is an extremely interesting question, which goes from science to
philosophy of science and back again - it is not far from asking for the
complete measure of animal welfare. Wow. No, I'm not questioning you in asking
it - you really should. The pig industry obviously wants to sell the idea that
they know the answer. Scientists have to come up with a relevant answer to
that - whether we believe the idea is correct or not. I know there are both pig
industry people and others on this list, but the question came from a scientist,
and I'm a scientist, so that's the route I will take.
>
> Now, how do we measure the satisfaction of needs? Do we even have the concept
of a measurement of satisfaction of needs? One problem is, there's not even
consensus over how to define needs. The neat and tidy idea of needs like little
boxes you can open and close is attractive for policy-making, but exactly the
reductionist and categoric properties make it difficult for scientists to accept
as it will inevitably reduce the complex reality to something far more simple
than we like.
More to the point, far more simple than reality .
Of course, the whole conception of behavior as driven by immediate "needs" is
not only an oversimplification, but a distortion of reality. It arises from a
historical failure, deep-rooted in behavioral sciences, to distinguish function
from causation - or perhaps more accurately, from proximate causation. In the
evolutionary sense, it is function which drives the forms of behavior, but the
proximate triggers of behavior need not and very often do not lie in the
animal's perception of any specific need, and especially not a physiological
one. For example, a predator which waits until it is hungry to set out in
search of prey is likely to starve sooner rather than later. Successful
predators start out looking for prey while they still have abundant energy and
nutrient resources in reserve. Those resources will be required for the
finding, pursuit and capture of the prey. The successful predator "needs" - and
has - a behavioral system (call it "drive" or whatever you like) which prompts
it to prey-seeking activity long in advance of any physiological need (it also
has, of course, a well-adapted pattern based both on innate preferences and on
memory, which guides its searching in far from random ways). Similar systems of
course operate in other animal species, and in the service of other functions
besides nutrition. Those systems generate "needs" which, while often not
definable in physiological terms, are nevertheless perfectly real in behavioral
terms, and whose non-satisfaction can lead to all sorts of pathology. "Cribbing"
in horses is a classical example.
> There are some really basic needs, which if not satisfied will simply lead to
the death of the animal. These needs are relatively easy to define, and they
tend to be physiological rather than behavioural. But even for these basic
needs, does survival equal satisfaction of needs? The milk substitute for dairy
calves supposedly satisfies the nutritional need of these calves - but a calf
raised on "real" cow's milk look disturbingly different from one raised on
substitute. It's easy to say here where a need is NOT satisfied - a calf given
only water will die - but how much satisfaction do you require for satisfaction?
>
> Yvonne, your question is reason for a real discussion - let's hope it
generates that!
I whole-heartedly second this wish!
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 2-NOV-2005 15:44:21.54
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List"
CC:
Subj: RE: inhibit ing agression precursors
Dear all, At no time did I state or even imply that a static pulse collar was my first choice for treating dog aggression on children.
In context my discussion moved to an ethical plane and I was discussing behaviours that endanger the health of others eg dog aggression towards children; and barking dogs.
At no time have I ever stated or implied that static pulse collars are a panacea treatment. I use them where strictly appropriate and as such I have a wider range of treatment options than most.
Jackie Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaivour)
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
Moving to my point in response to your above. Looking at your above and the intimations of what you are saying here yes I agree that using e-collars collars can teach avoidance behaviour and so the dog would rather run away than show an agression precursor. i.e the bark or growl.
Dr Jacqueline Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg & Jackie
To: gooddog@dodo.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: FW: inhibit ing agression precursors
-----Original Message-----
From: k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz [mailto:k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:08 PM
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: inhibit ing agression precursors
John - the trainer I work my dogs with has often said that people should not 'train away' growling, and I never fully understood what she was saying but the example you give below has increased my understanding. To rephrase (and check my understanding) - if you inhibit the growling behavior, the dog may still bite without warning and that's probably more dangerous in the long run?
thanks
H
k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> I would shove them out of the way and make my get-away, as do nice dogs.
> Jackie Perkins
> BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
> Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
Hi Jackie,
We haven't spoken for a while.
OK lets firstly set my position straight so there is no misunderstanding. As you know I have at times when absolutely necessary used remote command collars and bark collars as as *TEMPORARY* behavour interuptors and if I believe the situaion warrants it for safety of life to any one or animal in the situation I would again.
There are not my first call nor are they my last. Each behavour modification case is individual and must be addressed as such.
In my view if for safety sake an aversive is deemed necessary then a human, ethical trainer uses the least one that will be effective in the circumstances.
Reviewing at a ll times whether it is is necessary to continue with its use further.
There is in my view no one size fits all magic pill in behavioural modification.
So I do not write this as any anti remote collar zealot.
Moving to my point in response to your above. Looking at your above and the intimations of what you are saying here yes I agree that using e-collars collars can teach avoidance behaviour and so the dog would rather run away than show an agression precursor. i.e the bark or growl.
So let's now look at a case out of my own case book. We saw a dog who had had the precursors to agression. (i.e. a growl or a bark) punished every time to the point where it was now fearful of doing them at anytime. So it obviously now chooses avoidance as in escaping away from the problem each time.
What do you think would happen when this dog was chased by a persistant toddler into a corner it couldn't get away from?
I think we both know what the result would b e. It still wouldn't issue the precursor (the bark) but it will deliver the end of the sequence. (The bite)
All dogs if they feel threatened enough *will* bite. The same as any organism if it feels threatened enough *will* use agression to gain it's end.
It is not a question of good dogs will always avoid the situation or it is only bad dogs who bite.
How does a dog push a human out of it's road. A toddler it could probably push over. I suggest that the same result might happen to the dog. The toddler would be howling it's eyes out (The doggy hurt me) and without the adult seeing what actually happened the dog might be punished for agressive behavour. Not a good course of action I agree but it does happen many times as we know.
I say toddlers and dogs should never be left unsupervised at any time. Not because either is bad but because there is no common language or understanding between them.
Where am I going with this?
While I am not in f avour of banning these devices or any physical punishment device (OK maybe one) IMO they should not be sold over the counter as they are. They should not be promoted as they are by the manufacturers and their agents as an easy instant fix to anything.
They should only be in the hands of proven ethical, experienced trainers and behavioural consultants. Even then they should not be lightly sold.They should come with a recognised course of instructions and warnings not just with a video and/or written instructions on how to operate them.
After all do we let our teenagers learn to drive in the very first instance with the most powerful sports car available on the motorway where they can and probably will kill themselves and/or someone else.
I think the above case from my own files shows the danger of just suppressing symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying problem. This is the reality of the way these devices are often used by the general public. Which is wh y I say these devices should not be available just OTC.
Secondly Jackie. I ask you to produce facts and/data to support your hypethosis expressed earlier that "dogs crave discipline"
In my view every single organism in this world is programmed with the wish to survive and enjoy the best possible conditios it can.
If to get the best they can then this means responding to discipline then they will but I feel it is a huge leap from my above reality to "dogs (or any organism) crave discipline".
Regards John L.
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 2-NOV-2005 15:48:55.85
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List"
CC:
Subj: RE: barking boxer
Dear Michael, which brand and make of collar did the boxer use, and what part of the world are you in?
Dr Jacqueline Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 2-NOV-2005 20:29:44.46
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: How to measure satisfaction of needs?
Anna Olsson
> Now, how do we measure the satisfaction of needs? Do we even have the
concept of a measurement of satisfaction of needs? One problem is, there's
not even consensus over how to define needs. The neat and tidy idea of needs
like little boxes you can open and close is attractive for policy-making,
but exactly the reductionist and categoric properties make it difficult for
scientists to accept as it will inevitably reduce the complex reality to
something far more simple than we like.
>
margory cohen -
If happiness has anything to do with needs --
I can't not think of Animal Happiness by Vicki Hearne (see also Adam's Task)
for essays on happiness which I think is close to some of thoughts re needs
as a source for reading.
Just a thought, I can't resist.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 2-NOV-2005 21:11:59.37
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: inhibiting agression precursors
FROM JACKIE:
> Dear all, At no time did I state or even imply that a static pulse collar was my first choice for treating dog aggression on children.
> In context my discussion moved to an ethical plane and I was discussing behaviours that endanger the health of others eg dog aggression towards children; and barking dogs.
Hi Jackie,
I did read and accept your earlier well reasoned and worded post on similar lines to this in response to my post first to you. I ignorantly however didn't achnowledge it and this and my next actions in the bad editing of my reply to Hebe has abviously created a grey area that you felt the need to respond to with a further clarification. For the fact that my actions contributed to this I apologise.
I wasn't restating. I had accepted what you said at face value and had moved on to a general reply to Hebe on the subject of blanket inhibiting of all visible precursors to agression.
> At no time have I ever stated or implied that static pulse collars are a panacea treatment. I use them where strictly appropriate and as such I have a wider range of treatment options than most.
A good point Jackie. Unfortunately in my experience not all sales people of these devices are as ethical or knowledgable as this. (I can quote case and history if needed.) It is these people and the like I want to see a strong set of brakes applied to. Not to the responsible, ethical, humane practitioner or trainer. These people would still be able to use them if OTC sales were restricted.
I was not making a comment on your personal ethics. I was making a general point about an issue. But I do understand and accept how you feel.
If you are happy lets move on to my point about the issue of blanket inhibition of visible agression precursors. Do you agree or disagree that this has the potential to possibly create an even more dangerous animal? and why?
Regards John L.
P.S. This time I have made sure I have edited my post properly
John.
From: IN%"SARCRNA@aol.com" 2-NOV-2005 21:13:48.16
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Bits, bridles and -R
Thank you John for that clarification and for your honesty in answering. I
have never seen one that occluded the airway and recently ran a search for
other types of bitless bridles. I basically found what Diane posted. I know
these discussions become heated at times however I do appreciate factual
information given between parties.
Susan Martinez
From: IN%"clare@amerion.com" "Clare Lewandowski" 2-NOV-2005 23:07:12.01
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
John,
You still don't quite understand that in riding a horse, the cues used to
signal are -R. Outside of the one case of people using leg pressure to have
the horse move into a leg to indicate a lead change for a canter, horses are
not ridden by having them move into pressure. I think you'll have to go take
some riding lessons to understand it. Your left hand may be doing one thing,
right another, each leg also doing something specific, turning your head
changes your balance and that is a cue.
Example, a left turn using a direct rein and legs, slight pressure to the
left rein and pressure with outside leg. Just had a message from Kayce on
this one. Even though teaching her mare to go left may be taught with having
a horse move into a target, at some point there is a transfer over to
signaling for riding. It might be taught perhaps this way. Horse is taught
to move head to the left with a target and verbal cue. horse has bridle on,
left rein has enough pressure to make contact, verbal cue head left plus
target is used, crossing over from what the horse already knows to the new
signal. As horse understands that the rein contact is the new signal, verbal
and target are faded. Kayce rides with aids that are light, mere whispers
but they are traditional aids.
To teach a horse to bend around the inside leg, a head target and hip target
could be used. Degree of bend will affect how tight a curve the horse moves
in. I'm simplifying here. Cuing would be inside rein directs head and neck
to curve left, left leg stationary, it is the point to curve around, right
leg applied behind girth to tell horse what to do with rear end. Right rein
may
control speed. Riding in an inward spiral horse is cued with one group of
signals that change to some degree as curve tightens, as outward spiral
starts, signals change, still going left but inside rein loosens a bit to
let horse go wider, outside rein starts to signal come out a bit further,
horse still has some curve around inside leg but inside leg is now cuing
move away just a bit. With an indirect rein, the difference is the outside
rein would touch the neck and the head and neck turn away from the touch.
The concept of bending using body parts targeting toward the touch of the
target can be taught but cuing the horse to curve left and how much to curve
and at what speed with cues that say move into this touch? I don't think
that is how Inge is riding her horses. Nor Hans, Charish or anyone else I've
heard of using BnT/SATS with horses. Teaching the bodyparts and concepts of
flexion, collection, extension, balance yes, trying to ride in the same
manner it is taught, no. The sum is greater than the parts.
There is no conflict in this either. It is simply fading the cue used to
teach it and substituting another cue.
Some things with horses I don't think would make sense to ask a horse to cue
by moving into the touch.
Example, from watching horse loggers. Horses wear blinkers on their bridles
to
prevent them turning too sharply, they dislike going where they can't see.
For saftey, blinkers prevent a horse from doubling back on the teamster. So
the horse can not see the teamster, relying only on touch and hearing.
Hooking up a log with the chain to the singletree may mean the horse has to
back up and swing its hindquarters around while the teamster carries the
singletree. Verbal cues of back step and come around as the teamster holding
lines and singletree somewhat taut, to avoid tangling and to give tactile
cues of how far to back up and how far to move the hindquarters. The tactile
cue for the hindquarters is in part the touch of the traces against the
horse's leg and the horse must move away from it or get tangled in a mess of
harness, chain, singletree, teamster and log. I can't fathom how to move the
singletree and have the horse move into a touch. Maybe my creativity is
poor, it seems as if the physical requirements of many horse related
activities make the mechanics of how to signal logically done with moving
away from touch or yielding to pressure.
Trying to do it the opposite way seems as awkward as driving a car with the
steering reversed or the brakes and accelerator work by having them respond
when your foot comes off. I did steer a boat once with an inboard moter that
had the steering reversed, very disorienting at first.
Perhaps someone is riding in a very different manner. I don't think the
people you mentioned are doing so.
As far as where this is going with dogs, vision may be a primary sense for
them but touch is still highly relevant and accessible when a dog is
distracted through vision, hearing or smell. If a leash is already on the
dog in public, developing a feel for information going both up and down the
leash takes advantage of a very useful sensory system. You or your dog may
not see or hear each other but if that leash is on you can both feel what
the other is doing. The 'ideal' of a loose leash ignores all the information
going either way. Take a riding lesson and you'll 'feel' it for yourself. I
wasn't referring to easier for the human but easier for the dog, as if the
handler uses a leash lift to create a shift in the position of the snap the
dog will feel it even if looking away and be prepared for the human to
change direction or speed. This happens anyway, using it consciously teaches
you how to do it as naturally as riding a bike or a horse. Giving the dog
more information is easier for the dog rather than having to maintain
attention with vision or hearing. I do recommend getting some riding
lessons, it will make you better at using a leash and get a glimpse of
something you haven't even known to want. I've done that whole limp loose
undetectable leash stuff and it has a place with off leash work but a leash
adds a lot to the experience. Off leash I might miss the slight hesitation
or head movement that tells me the dog noticed something I didn't and the
dog might miss my turn or hesitation. The leash might be a very light one
but its presence adds to the experience in public rather than detracting or
interfering.
Clare
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Bits, bridles and -R
>
>>I've never
>> heard mention that any horse is trained to ride without cues that are not
>> > some form of yielding to pressure.
>
>
> Hi Clare,
>
> When Kayce and others who use bridges and targetting R+ type techniques
> under saddle are using them they teach move TOWARDS the pressure/The
> target and you will be reinforced not give to it move AWAY and the
> pressure will be eased.
>
> This I think you will agree makes huge difference in the concept of how to
> use either natural aids as in your body or artificial as in the target
> what ever it may be.
>
>
> Even this quote from you >To reward your
>> horse after clicking, use the rein to gently
>> pull your horse's head to the side. Then lean forward and feed him.> The
>> horse is taught via yielding to the rein's pull to be fed the treat.
>
> I agree with you here but, while it is pure supposition on my part as I am
> not trained by or have spoken to the writers, I suggest that this wouldn't
> need to happen more than a couple of times and the horse would always
> understand where the primary reinforcer was to be found so long as the
> place was always constant. Indeed I think that this could be taught
> differently. In a more R+ way. I am sure Kayce or Inge could think of a
> way. I think I can as well perhaps by using a fadable extender pole. Not
> that I am suggesting that there is anything wrong with the way it has been
> taught.
>
> If
>> you haven't ridden a horse it might be hard to understand no matter what
>> your level of SATS certification is.
>
> Actually Clare it isn't. I'll give you a graphic example at my own expense
> out of my own experience.
>
> My older dog Anna I taught to "smile" by using my fingers to teach her to
> pull her lips away from them. In the same fashion as horses are taught to
> move give to the slightest pressure. I had absolutely huge problems trying
> to fade that cue. I asked Kayce about it and the very first question she
> asked me to make me think was "did you teach her to give to the
> pressure/move away from it or did you use a target and teach her to move
> towards it?"
>
> I had created a solid cue of she needed the fingers to TOUCH her to give
> her the signal of what I wanted. So no matter how hard I tried to fade
> that cue to no touch needed then back to just a hand signal it wasn't ever
> going to happen.
>
> If I had been using the target technique as it was meant to be used she
> would have never needed me to touch her to begin with and so we wouldn't
> have got the rigid pattern which I couldn't alter.
>
> Teaching a dog to yield to a leash and
>> using a leash as a way to signal in a manner similar to riding seem to be
>> out of favor except with perhaps guide dogs for the blind where tactile
>> systems are necessary.
>> With emphasis on high point in trial off leash or on leash loose leash
>> heeling is preferred, which means the dog must rely on visual or auditory
>> > senses, using a leash to signal as softly and clearly as a rider can
>> is
>> > almost unheard of.
>
> I'm not sure quite where you are going here Clare but it is unnecessary as
> dogs first sense is actually visual and they work very extensively from
> body language and movement. They communicate with each other and other
> animals by this means so why not use these means to communicate to them
> what we want. It's the easiest for them to understand.
>
> When heeling in higher class competitions my dog works exclusively off my
> body whether on or off lead.
>
> Sure I use a common system of communication between us as in bridges and
> targetting to give her the information about what I want her to do in the
> teaching stages but it helps if you relate that teaching as much as
> possible to the way they operate instinctively. The same as I'm sure it
> would for horses who have different behavioural responses to dog of
> course. It's about meeting them half way and making it even easier for
> them.
>
> As nearly world wide, there are leash laws, dogs in
>> public could benefit from handlers who develop good leash skills.
>
> Certainly I agree here Clare but it depends on how you define having good
> leash skills. In my style of teaching and handling the lead is not a
> teaching device it is a safety device.
>
> Much of our teaching these days is also "hands off" as well. But then I
> think many other dog trainers are as well.
>
>
> I don't > have data on it, but I suspect it is mentally less tiring than
> having to > maintain visual awareness, like holding the hand of a child
> rather than > having to constantly keep an eye on it.
>
> I am holding my dogs hand as in holding the leash but this doesn't mean
> that I have to use the lead exclusively to guide any more than I have to
> exclusively use my hand to guide a child. As for the trainer having to
> exert more effort using my methods I have absolutely no problem with this
> if it makes it easier for the animal.
>
> Regards John L.
>
>
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 3-NOV-2005 15:42:33.33
To: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List"
Subj: RE: Re: inhibiting agression precursors
Hi John,
I want you to know that I really do not use P+ much as a primary treatment,
but if you all keep on coming up with these bleak scenarios, then P+ moves
up on the list.
About suppressing aggressive precursors, this is a tricky one and I feel
there is no good research to go on just intuitions. My intuition is that if
you suppress the precursor strongly then the whole aggressive response seems
to short-circuit because the dog has been taken out of one drive and put
into another. Perhaps an inadequate punisher (which by definintion is not a
punisher but more like an aggravator) would be likely to lead to the problem
you are indicating. I know people claim that the dog is in danger of
learning to still become aggressive but not show the early aggressive signs
but this does not fit with my experience. I also feel there could be breed
differences on this topic. The dog needs to be instantly shown what to do of
course after an aversive is applied such as "look at me" or "sit" or
"anything" other than the undesired behaviour or any precursors such as
looking.
A slower or combination approach would see ds/cc plus deference regimme in
all things, plus comprehensive look at the dog's overall lifestyle
concurrent or even replacing the above approach. Re-homing is always going
to high on the list where a dog shows aggression to another family member
especially if a child. Euthanasia is high on the list where the dog is
dangerously aggressive or to a wider range of targets.
Each case needs to be assessed on its unique merits, and no two cases are
alike. Behaviour work really keeps you thinking on your feet.
Dr Jacqueline Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg & Jackie"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:42 PM
Subject: FW: Re: inhibiting agression precursors
-----Original Message-----
From: k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz [mailto:k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:12 PM
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Re: inhibiting agression precursors
FROM JACKIE:
> Dear all, At no time did I state or even imply that a static pulse collar
was my first choice for treating dog aggression on children.
> In context my discussion moved to an ethical plane and I was discussing
behaviours that endanger the health of others eg dog aggression towards
children; and barking dogs.
Hi Jackie,
I did read and accept your earlier well reasoned and worded post on
similar lines to this in response to my post first to you. I ignorantly
however didn't achnowledge it and this and my next actions in the bad
editing of my reply to Hebe has abviously created a grey area that you felt
the need to respond to with a further clarification. For the fact that my
actions contributed to this I apologise.
I wasn't restating. I had accepted what you said at face value and had moved
on to a general reply to Hebe on the subject of blanket inhibiting of all
visible precursors to agression.
> At no time have I ever stated or implied that static pulse collars are a
panacea treatment. I use them where strictly appropriate and as such I have
a wider range of treatment options than most.
A good point Jackie. Unfortunately in my experience not all sales people of
these devices are as ethical or knowledgable as this. (I can quote case and
history if needed.) It is these people and the like I want to see a strong
set of brakes applied to. Not to the responsible, ethical, humane
practitioner or trainer. These people would still be able to use them if OTC
sales were restricted.
I was not making a comment on your personal ethics. I was making a general
point about an issue. But I do understand and accept how you feel.
If you are happy lets move on to my point about the issue of blanket
inhibition of visible agression precursors. Do you agree or disagree that
this has the potential to possibly create an even more dangerous animal? and
why?
Regards John L.
P.S. This time I have made sure I have edited my post properly
John.
From: IN%"nahuja@ucsd.edu" 5-NOV-2005 19:23:02.64
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Call for Papers: Animals and Globalization
CALL FOR PAPERS
“Animals and Globalization”
Seminar at the American Comparative Literature Association
2006 Conference
March 23-26, 2006
Princeton, NJ
Proposals due November 30, 2005
Conference Website: http://webscript.princeton.edu/~acla06/site/
This seminar will consider the changing roles of nonhuman
animals as laborers, companions, commodities, and cultural
figures in current processes of globalization. Animals and
products produced from and by animal bodies are increasingly
circulated by transnational production networks, impacting
practices of human nutrition, scientific experimentation,
agriculture, industrial production, and animal domestication
worldwide. And as globalization also transforms the lived
spaces of human and nonhuman life, animals have come to serve as
powerful symbols in the transnational politics of culture:
companion animals, laboring animals, and hunted animals are
used to depict the cosmopolitanism and inequalities (economic,
racial, etc.) enabled by the globalization of labor,
information, and commerce.
Proposals from researchers in any field are welcome. Please
submit 250 word abstracts through the ACLA conference website.
The Paper Proposal form is at
http://aslamp01.princeton.edu/%7Eoitdas/acla06/ and proposals
are due November 30, 2005. Make sure to select “Animals and
Globalization” as the seminar on the form. Questions? Email
Neel Ahuja at nahuja@ucsd.edu.
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" "John R. Lane" 6-NOV-2005 20:45:00.65
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: DOG inhibiting agression precursors
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for your reasoned reply.
It shows that if two people wish to, while they might differ in view
points, they can stick to issues and debate and discuss them as fully as
needed rather than just resorting to personal level abuse which
scientifically shows absolutely nothing and does nothing to further anyone's
knowledge.
This latter emotional response without facts to back up their comments to
me often just shows the paucity of the people involved's case and/or actual
knowledge no matter which end of the scale in training techniques their
ideologies might lay.
It is also pleasing to see that other list members of whatever viewpoints on
this issue are also allowing us to stick to facts in this rather than just
hurling abuse about it. Well done people.
My responses to your points are interspersed below.
JACKIE: I want you to know that I really do not use P+ much as a primary
treatment,
MY RESPONSE: That is great Jackie. It pretty well parallels my own personal
ethics. IMHO A humane trainer only uses it when absolutely necessary. And
then always constantly reviews whether it is necessary to continue its use.
JACKIE: but if you all keep on coming up with these bleak scenarios, then P+
moves up on the list.
MY RESPONSE: I'm puzzled by what you mean with this comment Jackie. Surely
you don't mean that bleak scenarios always need to use P+ to change them.
Please expand if you feel it warranted. Otherwise let's move on.
JACKIE: About suppressing aggressive precursors, this is a tricky one and I
feel there is no good research to go on just intuitions.
MY RESPONSE: I would agree with you that I also know of no known empirical
data research to go on (Perhaps other list members can point to references
to studies) but I would disagree that all else is just intuition.
While personal experience is only anecdotal anecdotal experience can be
used to show the possibility of trends. But maybe we are just using
different words here to say the same thing. In your phrasing perhaps
intuition means experience?
JACKIE: My intuition is that if you suppress the precursor strongly then
the whole aggressive response seems to short-circuit...
MY RESPONSE: While I would use the terminology "collapse the sequence"
rather than short circuit I know from personal experience that this as you
say can sometimes happen. Which is why I said that earlier that I didn't
claim that that the animal would always learn to only avoid the precursor.
However I know from personal experience that it doesn't always.
IMO The questions to be examined here are:
1) How often each happens?
And
2) In each individual training situation if you can find another way to
safely manage the situation that doesn't require taking the risk is taking
the risk justifiable?
OK to show my point from my experience with one personal experience real
situation. I was last year called to visit a Rottie that was already wearing
an anti bark e-collar. This collar had not been recommended by me nor by any
training practitioner that I know of. It was the idea of the owner based on
what a mate had said. It had had been sold to him without any real
examination of the scenario by a retailer of the device. Just because he
said he wanted one.
This was an effective device. I know because I tested it.
My investigation showed that a lot of what was happening (although not all
by any means) was related to territorial aggression. I set up the situation
so the dog barked at me when I approached the gate. The bark collar kicked
in. The dog stopped barking and it auto sat. Success you might---think till
you looked closer at the dog and saw the thousand yard stare glaring
straight through you, the curling of the lips and the rest of the body
tension. This was one of the reasons I had been called. We very much still
had a dog in an extreme state of arousal. Possibly even more so because of
barrier frustration. (I think although I haven't heard the term barrier
frustration used in relation to an e-collar it could be used here. The
difference is only one of a visible barrier V an invisible one.)
Now you would say and I agree that this was due to the wrong tool/technique
being used for the situation in ignorance and I would agree but my point in
talking about this case is that this example does show that it is possible
that the suppression of only one part of the sequence but not the rest can
occur using P+.
I know that individual cases do not prove or disprove a general rule but I
think we would both agree that they do show possibilities.
JACKIE: because the dog has been taken out of one drive and put into
another.
MY RESPONSE: While you may be partially right I suspect there may be another
factor at work here also. It would also be similar to the way that R+ing one
bit (The bit you want to build stronger) part of a sequence of events can
also to a lesser extent also R+s the rest of the sequence that this behavior
is part of. So therefore possibly P+ing one aspect of the sequence you
wanted to get rid of would also to a lesser extent P+ the rest of the
sequence.
Also if you look at my example above no way had the dog been taken out of
the drive. The drive had just been painfully frustrated. Which, although I
am certainly no medical expert in this area, I think from a physiological
perspective may actually increase the internal state of stress.
JACKIE: Perhaps an inadequate punisher (which by definintion is not a
punisher but more like an aggravator) would be likely to lead to the problem
you are indicating.
MY RESPONSE: As I said I know the antibark collar was effective and it was
on high stim.
JACKIE: I know people claim that the dog is in danger of learning to still
become aggressive but not show the early aggressive signs but this does not
fit with my experience.
MY RESPONSE: I guess without fuller studies to draw on here we will just
have to differ here Jackie.
As I said my experience leads me to believe we may both be right.
In that sometimes the sequence collapses completely and sometimes it
doesn't.
Your experience doesn't.
JACKIE: I also feel there could be breed differences on this topic.
MY RESPONSE: You may be right here. Once again I see insufficient evidence
to positively say either way.
JACKIE: The dog needs to be instantly shown what to do of course after an
aversive is applied such as "look at me" or "sit" or "anything" other than
the undesired behaviour or any precursors such as looking.
MY RESPONSE: If one is needed I agree with your approach here. It also needs
being taught deference in all things very solidly first and the alternative
behavior needs to be very solidly taught outside of the trigger situation
with intensity of distraction levels slowly being raised to almost and if
able to do so safely even at the trigger point so you shift this trigger
point.
JACKIE: A slower or combination approach would see ds/cc plus deference
regimme in all things, plus comprehensive look at the dog's overall
lifestyle concurrent or even replacing the above approach.
MY RESPONSE: I agree and if I am able to this safely then this is the
approach I prefer to take at all times. The fact that it may be slower is
not a formula I factor into whether it is what I will use or recommend. This
is because I want commitment to the animal from the people I see not just
someone wanting a quick fix pill. Without this I might as well not waste my
time because the dog will be back in six months or less.
JACKIE: Re-homing is always going to high on the list where a dog shows
aggression to another family member especially if a child. Euthanasia is
high on the list where the dog is dangerously aggressive or to a wider range
of targets.
MY RESPONSE: I personally absolutely refuse to make this decision for
people. I feel it is my job in the first instances to point out as fully as
possible what I see the alternatives as then the decision on which direction
they want to proceed in is then up to the owner. This then gives commitment
from the owner to the course of action rather than allowing them to "blame".
JACKIE: Each case needs to be assessed on its unique merits, and no two
cases are alike. Behavior work really keeps you thinking on your feet.
MY RESPONSE: Amen to that.
I have to go and earn some money at this point Jackie but regarding your
other post on this topic Jackie:
Yes I have seen one but in the case I saw it was even more dangerous. It
was a Dobe doing this behavior to humans. Luckily I didn't have to devise a
strategy to try to deal with what I would certainly regard as an aberrant
behavior rather than the normal run of aggression displays. In the course of
my workup we contacted the breeder wanting to know about hereditary factors.
The breeder with out any questions immediately took the dog back and
replaced it.
So I don't know how I would have tried to solve it.
I know that the term idiopathic is often a catch phrase for aggression that
the diagnoser really doesn't know the reason for but this was one I would
actually term as this.
If you have managed to wade your way through this rather long post Jackie.
Regards John L.
From: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants" 7-NOV-2005 00:43:37.84
To: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" "John R. Lane"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List"
Subj: RE: Re: DOG inhibiting agression precursors
I am impressed at the level of conversation and decorum expressed in general
about electronic collars this time around too.
JACKIE: but if you all keep on coming up with these bleak scenarios, then P+
moves up on the list.
MY RESPONSE: I'm puzzled by what you mean with this comment Jackie. Surely
you don't mean that bleak scenarios always need to use P+ to change them.
Jackie (2): Bleak scenarios are difficult behaviour probs that have not
responded to usual techniques, involve immediate danger, are really
trained-in, or for some reason seem to be made worse by the usual human
responses eg barking, jumping up; two deceptively difficult problems. Bleak
scenarios may also be due to underlying undiagnosed pathology.
I believe P+ is justifiable to make things rapidly safe for others, and
sometimes to quickly break a bad behaviour cycle.
Most people use P+ probably even more than I, but they rationalise it away
as something else.
John: (2) In each individual training situation if you can find another way
to safely manage the situation that doesn't require taking the risk is
takingthe risk justifiable?
Jackie (2): I havent seen much risk involved in how I use P+ .
One of the main indicators for using P+ is to rapidly suppress a behaviour
to make things safe, in conjunction with longer term strategies.
John (2): OK to show my point from my experience with one personal
experience real situation. I was last year called to visit a Rottie that was
already wearing an anti bark e-collar. This collar had not been recommended
by me nor by any training practitioner that I know of. It was the idea of
the owner based on
what a mate had said. It had had been sold to him without any real
examination of the scenario by a retailer of the device. Just because he
said he wanted one.
This was an effective device. I know because I tested it.
My investigation showed that a lot of what was happening (although not all
by any means) was related to territorial aggression. I set up the situation
so the dog barked at me when I approached the gate. The bark collar kicked
in. The dog stopped barking and it auto sat. Success you might---think till
you looked closer at the dog and saw the thousand yard stare glaring
straight through you, the curling of the lips and the rest of the body
tension. This was one of the reasons I had been called. We very much still
had a dog in an extreme state of arousal. Possibly even more so because of
barrier frustration. (I think although I haven't heard the term barrier
frustration used in relation to an e-collar it could be used here. The
difference is only one of a visible barrier V an invisible one.)
Now you would say and I agree that this was due to the wrong tool/technique
being used for the situation in ignorance and I would agree but my point in
talking about this case is that this example does show that it is possible
that the suppression of only one part of the sequence but not the rest can
occur using P+.
Jackie(2) How do you know the dog was more aggressive with the collar than
without?
A bark collar is relatively low output and not meant to treat aggression. In
fact I have never seen an electronic collar which does not come with an
explicit warning stating that if a dog has ever shown aggressive tendencies,
then professional advice must be sought.
There are two problems here. It is effective at suppressing the barking but
not the aggression. It is indeed successful for the purpose it was designed
for. I would hope that owner never purchased the device with the expectation
that it could do anything about territorial aggression. Most owners want
their dog to be capable of performing watchdog duties despite wearing a bark
control collar.
Rottweillers as a breed fall into a class of their own when it comes to
aggression (see death statistics by American Humane Society).
No-one can give this dog a personality transplant which is what it would
take to take his aggression away. It possibly can be managed and avoided
relatively easily.
John (2) MY RESPONSE: As I said I know the antibark collar was effective and
it was on high stim.
Jackie (2) : Electronic collars are probably not made strong enough to deal
with an aggressive Rottweiler, and neither would I want them to be.
John (2): As I said my experience leads me to believe we may both be right.
In that sometimes the sequence collapses completely and sometimes it
doesn't.
Jackie (2) I probably do not work with the calibre of big aggro dogs that
you do, by the sounds of it. And I have no desire to. The "man-eaters" fall
into a class of their own.
JACKIE: Re-homing is always going to high on the list where a dog shows
aggression to another family member especially if a child. Euthanasia is
high on the list where the dog is dangerously aggressive or to a wider range
of targets.
MY RESPONSE: I personally absolutely refuse to make this decision for
people. I feel it is my job in the first instances to point out as fully as
possible what I see the alternatives as then the decision on which direction
they want to proceed in is then up to the owner. This then gives commitment
from the owner to the course of action rather than allowing them to "blame".
Jackie (2): Many people want my professional opinion about whether it is,
for example, safe to house two malamutes with their toddler where the male
malamute grasps the screen door in its teeth from outside growling and
violently attacking the door in response to the 2 year old standing inside
on the other side of the screen door looking at the dog. The dog was fine
with me and not a "bad dog" per se. He just did not like children especially
in "his" home. I always give people all options. In this case rehousing,
total separation from the children with high secure double fencing, or
euthanasia, were all options (this was what I would term a bleak scenario).
I do not make people's decisions either, but in this case any practitioner
is morally obligated to say so loud and clear if they preceive someone's
life to be in danger. It is not a blame game. It is called professional
responsibility.
I usually manage to read your posts, they are always worth it.
best regards,
Dr Jacqueline Perkins
BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA
Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Lane"
To: "Applied Ethology List"
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: Re: DOG inhibiting agression precursors
> Hi Jackie,
> Thanks for your reasoned reply.
>
> It shows that if two people wish to, while they might differ in view
> points, they can stick to issues and debate and discuss them as fully as
> needed rather than just resorting to personal level abuse which
> scientifically shows absolutely nothing and does nothing to further
> anyone's
> knowledge.
>
> This latter emotional response without facts to back up their comments to
> me often just shows the paucity of the people involved's case and/or
> actual
> knowledge no matter which end of the scale in training techniques their
> ideologies might lay.
>
> It is also pleasing to see that other list members of whatever viewpoints
> on
> this issue are also allowing us to stick to facts in this rather than just
> hurling abuse about it. Well done people.
>
> My responses to your points are interspersed below.
>
> JACKIE: I want you to know that I really do not use P+ much as a primary
> treatment,
> MY RESPONSE: That is great Jackie. It pretty well parallels my own
> personal
> ethics. IMHO A humane trainer only uses it when absolutely necessary. And
> then always constantly reviews whether it is necessary to continue its
> use.
>
> JACKIE: but if you all keep on coming up with these bleak scenarios, then
> P+
> moves up on the list.
> MY RESPONSE: I'm puzzled by what you mean with this comment Jackie. Surely
> you don't mean that bleak scenarios always need to use P+ to change them.
> Please expand if you feel it warranted. Otherwise let's move on.
>
>
> JACKIE: About suppressing aggressive precursors, this is a tricky one and
> I
> feel there is no good research to go on just intuitions.
> MY RESPONSE: I would agree with you that I also know of no known empirical
> data research to go on (Perhaps other list members can point to references
> to studies) but I would disagree that all else is just intuition.
> While personal experience is only anecdotal anecdotal experience can be
> used to show the possibility of trends. But maybe we are just using
> different words here to say the same thing. In your phrasing perhaps
> intuition means experience?
>
> JACKIE: My intuition is that if you suppress the precursor strongly then
> the whole aggressive response seems to short-circuit...
> MY RESPONSE: While I would use the terminology "collapse the sequence"
> rather than short circuit I know from personal experience that this as you
> say can sometimes happen. Which is why I said that earlier that I didn't
> claim that that the animal would always learn to only avoid the precursor.
> However I know from personal experience that it doesn't always.
> IMO The questions to be examined here are:
> 1) How often each happens?
> And
> 2) In each individual training situation if you can find another way to
> safely manage the situation that doesn't require taking the risk is taking
> the risk justifiable?
>
> OK to show my point from my experience with one personal experience real
> situation. I was last year called to visit a Rottie that was already
> wearing
> an anti bark e-collar. This collar had not been recommended by me nor by
> any
> training practitioner that I know of. It was the idea of the owner based
> on
> what a mate had said. It had had been sold to him without any real
> examination of the scenario by a retailer of the device. Just because he
> said he wanted one.
>
> This was an effective device. I know because I tested it.
>
> My investigation showed that a lot of what was happening (although not all
> by any means) was related to territorial aggression. I set up the
> situation
> so the dog barked at me when I approached the gate. The bark collar kicked
> in. The dog stopped barking and it auto sat. Success you might---think
> till
> you looked closer at the dog and saw the thousand yard stare glaring
> straight through you, the curling of the lips and the rest of the body
> tension. This was one of the reasons I had been called. We very much still
> had a dog in an extreme state of arousal. Possibly even more so because of
> barrier frustration. (I think although I haven't heard the term barrier
> frustration used in relation to an e-collar it could be used here. The
> difference is only one of a visible barrier V an invisible one.)
>
> Now you would say and I agree that this was due to the wrong
> tool/technique
> being used for the situation in ignorance and I would agree but my point
> in
> talking about this case is that this example does show that it is possible
> that the suppression of only one part of the sequence but not the rest can
> occur using P+.
>
> I know that individual cases do not prove or disprove a general rule but I
> think we would both agree that they do show possibilities.
>
> JACKIE: because the dog has been taken out of one drive and put into
> another.
> MY RESPONSE: While you may be partially right I suspect there may be
> another
> factor at work here also. It would also be similar to the way that R+ing
> one
> bit (The bit you want to build stronger) part of a sequence of events can
> also to a lesser extent also R+s the rest of the sequence that this
> behavior
> is part of. So therefore possibly P+ing one aspect of the sequence you
> wanted to get rid of would also to a lesser extent P+ the rest of the
> sequence.
> Also if you look at my example above no way had the dog been taken out of
> the drive. The drive had just been painfully frustrated. Which, although I
> am certainly no medical expert in this area, I think from a physiological
> perspective may actually increase the internal state of stress.
>
> JACKIE: Perhaps an inadequate punisher (which by definintion is not a
> punisher but more like an aggravator) would be likely to lead to the
> problem
>
> you are indicating.
> MY RESPONSE: As I said I know the antibark collar was effective and it was
> on high stim.
>
> JACKIE: I know people claim that the dog is in danger of learning to still
> become aggressive but not show the early aggressive signs but this does
> not
> fit with my experience.
> MY RESPONSE: I guess without fuller studies to draw on here we will just
> have to differ here Jackie.
> As I said my experience leads me to believe we may both be right.
> In that sometimes the sequence collapses completely and sometimes it
> doesn't.
> Your experience doesn't.
>
>
> JACKIE: I also feel there could be breed differences on this topic.
> MY RESPONSE: You may be right here. Once again I see insufficient evidence
> to positively say either way.
>
> JACKIE: The dog needs to be instantly shown what to do of course after an
> aversive is applied such as "look at me" or "sit" or "anything" other than
> the undesired behaviour or any precursors such as looking.
> MY RESPONSE: If one is needed I agree with your approach here. It also
> needs
> being taught deference in all things very solidly first and the
> alternative
> behavior needs to be very solidly taught outside of the trigger situation
> with intensity of distraction levels slowly being raised to almost and if
> able to do so safely even at the trigger point so you shift this trigger
> point.
>
> JACKIE: A slower or combination approach would see ds/cc plus deference
> regimme in all things, plus comprehensive look at the dog's overall
> lifestyle concurrent or even replacing the above approach.
> MY RESPONSE: I agree and if I am able to this safely then this is the
> approach I prefer to take at all times. The fact that it may be slower is
> not a formula I factor into whether it is what I will use or recommend.
> This
> is because I want commitment to the animal from the people I see not just
> someone wanting a quick fix pill. Without this I might as well not waste
> my
> time because the dog will be back in six months or less.
>
> JACKIE: Re-homing is always going to high on the list where a dog shows
> aggression to another family member especially if a child. Euthanasia is
> high on the list where the dog is dangerously aggressive or to a wider
> range
> of targets.
> MY RESPONSE: I personally absolutely refuse to make this decision for
> people. I feel it is my job in the first instances to point out as fully
> as
> possible what I see the alternatives as then the decision on which
> direction
> they want to proceed in is then up to the owner. This then gives
> commitment
> from the owner to the course of action rather than allowing them to
> "blame".
>
>
> JACKIE: Each case needs to be assessed on its unique merits, and no two
> cases are alike. Behavior work really keeps you thinking on your feet.
> MY RESPONSE: Amen to that.
>
> I have to go and earn some money at this point Jackie but regarding your
> other post on this topic Jackie:
> Yes I have seen one but in the case I saw it was even more dangerous. It
> was a Dobe doing this behavior to humans. Luckily I didn't have to devise
> a
> strategy to try to deal with what I would certainly regard as an aberrant
> behavior rather than the normal run of aggression displays. In the course
> of
> my workup we contacted the breeder wanting to know about hereditary
> factors.
> The breeder with out any questions immediately took the dog back and
> replaced it.
>
> So I don't know how I would have tried to solve it.
>
> I know that the term idiopathic is often a catch phrase for aggression
> that
> the diagnoser really doesn't know the reason for but this was one I would
> actually term as this.
>
> If you have managed to wade your way through this rather long post Jackie.
> Regards John L.
>
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 7-NOV-2005 12:34:00.61
To: IN%"dr.jackie@good-dog.com.au" "Good Dog Behaviour Consultants"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: salivary and faecal cortisol measurements
Hi,
In most cases, you can expect a minimum of 20 minutes for cortisol to
get into urine. For faeces, I am not sure this was ever tested,
although Scott Creel's group may have done it with wolves. Based on
our wolf data, the correlation urinary cortisol and blood cortisol is
high. Faecal cortisol has its challenges; are you going to do the
assays? Some labs won't do it as the prep of the samples is not
"fun" (although I have to admit, I found salivary prep even more
disgusting).
S. Gadbois
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Psychology / Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS, Canada
Ethology, neuroethology, behavioural endocrinology
Dogs, wolves, coyotes, red foxes & Fundulids
http://www.gadbois.org/
Office LSC 2519; Lab LSC 4234/4235
---
On 1-Nov-05, at 4:12 PM, Good Dog Behaviour Consultants wrote:
> I am interested in anything anyone can tell me about faecal
> cortisol measurements notwithstanding that I shall do a literature
> search later.
> For example there must a a time lag between when the cortisol hits
> the blood stream and when it is passed out in faeces, and saliva.
> Can faeces be frozen and the cortisol levels remain the same? How
> acurate is it compared with blood cortisol?
> Salivary has been collected for cortisol measurement in dogs by
> placing string/rope in their mouth then wringing it out. I would
> prefer to have owners collect feces perhaps every 2nd day because
> it does not intefere with the dog and create experimentally induced
> cortisol. I would then like to have them freeze it for me so I can
> collect it in one go then take it away and test it.
> Jackie Perkins
> BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour)
> Veterinary Behaviour Consultant
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg & Jackie"
>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:45 AM
> Subject: FW: salivary cortisol measurements
>
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cheryl Kolus [mailto:ckolus@larimer.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:48 AM
>> To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
>> Subject: salivary cortisol measurements
>>
>> Hello. I am interested in opinions and scientific references
>> regarding
>> the accuracy of using salivary cortisol measurements to assess stress
>> levels, specifically in cats. Any input is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Cheryl Kolus
>> Colorado, USA
From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?UNKNOWN?Q?V=E4is=E4nen?=" 7-NOV-2005 19:26:07.31
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Best age for addopting a kitten --welfare considerations
Dear all,
I need some help. I am looking for articles whre there would be any
scientific basis on the best possible age of adotion concerning kittens,
and this from and ethological and welfare point of view. I know this has
not been studied that much but if anyone knows anything abot this I would
be more that gareful to gain some info, even opinnions and disscussion on
this list would be fine if no-one has references in their mind. But those
references are something I am primarily looking for.
Thanks a lot already in advance!
Regards,
Johanna
_______________________________________________________
Johanna Väisänen, PhD in Ethology
Department of Biology, IFM
University of Linköping
SE-581 83 Linköping
Sweden
Phone: +44-13-282611
Mobile: +358-440-172428
Email:
johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se
________________________________________________________
From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 8-NOV-2005 07:05:42.25
To: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Best age for addopting a kitten --welfare considerations
A good place to start would be The Domestic Cat the biology of its behaviour
second edition edited by Dennis Turner and Patrick Bateson. Cambridge
University Press ISBN 0-521-63648-5 There is an entire chapter on development and
it is heavily referenced.
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
11469 Olive Blvd. #254
St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"margret.wulbers-mindermann@hmh.slu.se" "margret" 8-NOV-2005 07:33:09.23
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: meaning of lying position in pigs
Dear all,
I am desperately looking for a reference where the lying position "lying on=
=20
the belly" in pigs is indicating less comfort (or not being relaxed) in=20
comparison to the lying position "lying on side". Can somebody give me a=20
hint where to find this information?
Best regards,
Margret W=FClbers-Mindermann
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" "Stanley Curtis" 8-NOV-2005 11:06:35.81
To: IN%"margret.wulbers-mindermann@hmh.slu.se" "margret", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: meaning of lying position in pigs
Margret-
The lying posture of pigs is a useful sign of the pigs' thermal comfort-
Often, when lying sternally ("on the belly") ("hunched" and offten "huddled
with groupmates" in what Samuel Brody called "social thermoregulation"), the
pig is trying to reduce body-surface contact area with a chilly floor (and
increase contact with the isothermal surfaces of other pigs)- Conversely,
often, when "lying on side" ("sprawled"), the pig is trying to increase
body-surface contact area with a floor that is serving as a thermal sink
("heat sink")- These are specific reatcions ("adaptates")t o specific
environmental stimuli ("adaptagents")- However, sometimes animlas reacting
to stressor(s) other than thermal find themselves in negative energy balance
and then they may instinctively react behaviorally as indicated above as
energy-conservative actions-
You might want to check the paper by F. J. Grommers et al. in the Journal of
Animal Science ~1970 regarding differences in contact area for different
lying postures by pigs-
And you might want to check a 1981 paper in Animal Production by C. R. Boon
regarding group laying posture of pigs-
Finally, you might want to check the on line report at
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/1203/ahaw_op_ej268_pigwelfare_report_en2.pdf
-Stanley Curtis
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana
----- Original Message -----
From: "margret"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:31 AM
Subject: meaning of lying position in pigs
Dear all,
I am desperately looking for a reference where the lying position "lying on
the belly" in pigs is indicating less comfort (or not being relaxed) in
comparison to the lying position "lying on side". Can somebody give me a
hint where to find this information?
Best regards,
Margret Wülbers-Mindermann
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" "Stanley Curtis" 8-NOV-2005 15:59:29.32
To: IN%"margret.wulbers-mindermann@hmh.slu.se" "margret", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: meaning of lying position in pigs
Should have inlcuded this link too-
http://www.vetmed.iastate.edu/departments/vdpam/swine/healthmgt/air/lyingpatterns/
-SEC
----- Original Message -----
From: "margret"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:31 AM
Subject: meaning of lying position in pigs
Dear all,
I am desperately looking for a reference where the lying position "lying on
the belly" in pigs is indicating less comfort (or not being relaxed) in
comparison to the lying position "lying on side". Can somebody give me a
hint where to find this information?
Best regards,
Margret Wülbers-Mindermann
From: IN%"hdmclean@telusplanet.net" "Hugh & Mary McLean" 9-NOV-2005 21:47:57.36
To: IN%"clare@amerion.com" "Clare Lewandowski"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Blinkers,Bits, bridles and -R
Hi,
I have been following this discussion with interest and was happy to
hear mention of horses and logging, having driven Clydesdales for a
couple of years some time ago - these horses were also used in the
forest to extract timber working singly and in pairs.
I feel that I need to add to your comments Clare about blinkers:-
> Example, from watching horse loggers. Horses wear blinkers on their
> bridles to
> prevent them turning too sharply, they dislike going where they can't
> see.
> For saftey, blinkers prevent a horse from doubling back on the
> teamster. So
> the horse can not see the teamster, relying only on touch and hearing.
>
The principle reason for putting blinkers of any type on a driven horse
are to prevent it from taking fright from whatever it is tied to
(harnessed to).
Many driven horses have never been trained to drive with no blinkers (an
"open" bridle). This can lead to awkward situations - I once saw a pony
bolt while still harnessed to its vehicle but wearing no bridle. The
new goom had removed the blinkered bridle before unhitching the pony
thinking that it would be easier to get the head collar on. It was a
small pony and was stopped by a large gentleman but not after crashing
into someone else's team of 4 ponies. It is always safest to train first
with open bridle, blinkers can always be introduced later.
Some closed blinkers restrict the horse's view to directly forwards
whereas other more open blinkers allow a greater field of view to the
side but not directly sideways (we called these "wide-awake" blinkers).
As you know horses have a very wide field of view normally so any
blinker restricts their natural field of view to a very large extent.
Driven horses which are blinkered are constantly being asked to move
where they cannot see, unless moving straight ahead. Sharp turns are
also common if for example the hazards section of a combined driving
event (well worth anyone going to see if not familiar with driven
horses). Driven horses can and do on occassion turn around to face the
vehicle if the harnessing, or turntable of the forecart in an
articulated vehicle, allows - this is why it is so hard to drive a pair
tandem. (one in front on the other- the front horse attached by traces
alone). Lastly a harness horse which does not move backwards as
willingly as forwards can make parking your vehicle very difficult...
A secondary reason for blinkers on driven horses is to protect the eyes,
especially in situations such as mining where the horses may be working
close to rough surfaces.
I don't think that anything I have said takes away from your arguments
about the use of pressure as an integral part of communication with
horses. Pressure and its release are inescapable when riding as you say,
and are an integral part of driving - have you ever seen driven haute
ecole? Of course we have seen high school dressage in long reins but to
see the horse perform the same movements in harness is both unusual and
beautiful.
Thanks again for mentioning driven horses.
Best wishes,
Mary Booth-McLean
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 9-NOV-2005 22:56:57.18
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
Hi All,
I have always wondered why drug sniffing dogs are so expensive. The going
rate seems about 7k us dollars. I have never trained a dog to do this, but it
seems a relatively easy thing to me to train most dogs to do. I would think you
could pick up most dogs from the pound that were of working dog descent, and
the forensic training samples are available for around 150 bucks to the
general public. Though I am in favor of the regulated legalization of
recreational drugs, I think by and large they do not belong in schools. Would the world
be a better place if every school had a friendly drug sniffing dog mascot? I
would think that the dogs could be trained for a few hundred dollars. Would
save many dogs from being put down. Would enrich our schools with a friendly
animal and help keep our children away from drugs before they are ready to
make mature decisions.
Michael
From: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander" 9-NOV-2005 23:50:26.00
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
Well...as someone who trains service dogs, I can tell you that the =
ability to do the task is the easy part. The harder part is finding =
that in a package that will tolerate public access (ever try to teach a =
dog with issues about stepping on certain floors to walk across them =
while doing his job? It falls into the realm of "just because you can =
doesn't mean you should"), is physically sound enough to do the job, =
will stay friendly in the face of adversity (not every drug addict is =
thrilled to have his stash found), will work at his job in spite of =
untold difficulty and distraction, will hold together over the long haul =
and will survive the training process. The fact is that in service dog =
work, 60% of dogs wash out. So you are not only paying for the training =
of "this" dog...but of all the dogs who wash out of the system, along =
with the overhead of running a program to train the animals, handlers, a =
placement coordinator and a myriad of other people involved with the =
development of such an animal. 7K strikes me as a relatively good price =
for a dog such as this!
Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
Dogs in the Park
Guelph, Ontario
sue@dogsinthepark.ca
www.dogsinthepark.ca
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 10-NOV-2005 00:21:26.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
In a message dated 11/9/2005 9:52:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sue@nestnature.com writes:
Well...as someone who trains service dogs, I can tell you that the ability
to do the task is the easy part. The harder part is finding that in a package
that will tolerate public access (ever try to teach a dog with issues about
stepping on certain floors to walk across them while doing his job? It falls
into the realm of "just because you can doesn't mean you should"), is
physically sound enough to do the job, will stay friendly in the face of adversity
(not every drug addict is thrilled to have his stash found), will work at his
job in spite of untold difficulty and distraction, will hold together over
the long haul and will survive the training process. The fact is that in
service dog work, 60% of dogs wash out. So you are not only paying for the
training of "this" dog...but of all the dogs who wash out of the system, along
with the overhead of running a program to train the animals, handlers, a
placement coordinator and a myriad of other people involved with the development of
such an animal. 7K strikes me as a relatively good price for a dog such as
this!
Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
Dogs in the Park
Guelph, Ontario
_sue@dogsinthepark.ca_ (mailto:sue@dogsinthepark.ca)
_www.dogsinthepark.ca_ (http://www.dogsinthepark.ca/)
Do you think these issues would apply to a school mascot trained to bring
attention to drug, alcohol or cigarette use?
From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?UNKNOWN?Q?V=E4is=E4nen?=" 10-NOV-2005 01:24:08.28
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Best age for Adopting a Kitten
Thanks for your answer. I have not been able to find these references. I
would love to get references to articles which I would be able to get
through my library, I can not get books, unfortunately. The thing is that I
have read that 7-10 weeks would be an optimum. This, however does seem to
occur in intros without any reference to a study which has shown this. Why
I am so interested in this is, that in Finland, the cat fanatics are
persistently campaigning for a minimum of 12 weeks for ALL cats, which I
consider insane since the cat's socialisation period is over by 12 weeks.
They refuse to believe me since ALL respectable breeders have subjectively
determined that over 12 weeks is best. I am suspicious about this campaign
since I consider it could be more of harm than benefit for the cats'
welfare in the long run, think about farm cats for instance. The fanatics
say that adoption below 8 weeks is criminal and animal welfare abuse, and
so forth and I have promised to look for these studies showing that the
ideal age is something else, but I can not find them now when I need them.
So any help from you guys would be great!
regards
Johanna
_______________________________________________________
Johanna Väisänen, PhD in Ethology
Department of Biology, IFM
University of Linköping
SE-581 83 Linköping
Sweden
Phone: +44-13-282611
Mobile: +358-440-172428
Email:
johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se
________________________________________________________
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 10-NOV-2005 02:21:58.86
To: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "=?utf-8?Q?'Johanna_V=D7=94is=D7=94nen'?=", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Best age for Adopting a Kitten
I think this article mentions something about it. If not then tell me =
and I'll try to find others.
Hilit
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanna V=D7=94is=D7=94nen [mailto:johva@ifm.liu.se]=20
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:24 AM
To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Best age for Adopting a Kitten
Thanks for your answer. I have not been able to find these references. I =
would love to get references to articles which I would be able to get=20
through my library, I can not get books, unfortunately. The thing is =
that I=20
have read that 7-10 weeks would be an optimum. This, however does seem =
to=20
occur in intros without any reference to a study which has shown this. =
Why=20
I am so interested in this is, that in Finland, the cat fanatics are=20
persistently campaigning for a minimum of 12 weeks for ALL cats, which I =
consider insane since the cat's socialisation period is over by 12 =
weeks.=20
They refuse to believe me since ALL respectable breeders have =
subjectively=20
determined that over 12 weeks is best. I am suspicious about this =
campaign=20
since I consider it could be more of harm than benefit for the cats'=20
welfare in the long run, think about farm cats for instance. The =
fanatics=20
say that adoption below 8 weeks is criminal and animal welfare abuse, =
and=20
so forth and I have promised to look for these studies showing that the=20
ideal age is something else, but I can not find them now when I need =
them.=20
So any help from you guys would be great!
regards
Johanna
_______________________________________________________
Johanna V=C3=A4is=C3=A4nen, PhD in Ethology
Department of Biology, IFM
University of Link=C3=B6ping
SE-581 83 Link=C3=B6ping
Sweden
Phone: +44-13-282611
Mobile: +358-440-172428
Email:=20
johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se
________________________________________________________
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 10-NOV-2005 02:35:41.65
To: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "=?utf-8?Q?'Johanna_V=D7=94is=D7=94nen'?=", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Best age for Adopting a Kitten
There is also a new excellent book called "The welfare of cats" edited =
by Irene Rochlitz. It is mentioned there several times that the best =
time for kittens to be socialized with humans is between 2-7 weeks of =
age. Karsh & Turner 1988 from the book the domestic cat: the biology of =
its behaviour is mentioned as the main reference, as well as Karsh 1984, =
which is a conference proceeding so you'll probably won't have it in =
your library as well.=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanna V=D7=94is=D7=94nen [mailto:johva@ifm.liu.se]=20
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:24 AM
To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Best age for Adopting a Kitten
Thanks for your answer. I have not been able to find these references. I =
would love to get references to articles which I would be able to get=20
through my library, I can not get books, unfortunately. The thing is =
that I=20
have read that 7-10 weeks would be an optimum. This, however does seem =
to=20
occur in intros without any reference to a study which has shown this. =
Why=20
I am so interested in this is, that in Finland, the cat fanatics are=20
persistently campaigning for a minimum of 12 weeks for ALL cats, which I =
consider insane since the cat's socialisation period is over by 12 =
weeks.=20
They refuse to believe me since ALL respectable breeders have =
subjectively=20
determined that over 12 weeks is best. I am suspicious about this =
campaign=20
since I consider it could be more of harm than benefit for the cats'=20
welfare in the long run, think about farm cats for instance. The =
fanatics=20
say that adoption below 8 weeks is criminal and animal welfare abuse, =
and=20
so forth and I have promised to look for these studies showing that the=20
ideal age is something else, but I can not find them now when I need =
them.=20
So any help from you guys would be great!
regards
Johanna
_______________________________________________________
Johanna V=C3=A4is=C3=A4nen, PhD in Ethology
Department of Biology, IFM
University of Link=C3=B6ping
SE-581 83 Link=C3=B6ping
Sweden
Phone: +44-13-282611
Mobile: +358-440-172428
Email:=20
johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se
________________________________________________________
From: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander" 10-NOV-2005 07:34:45.50
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
Do you think these issues would apply to a school mascot trained to =
bring attention to drug, alcohol or cigarette use?
Absolutely!
When I train a service dog, I divide the training into two parts-the =
special skills needed to do the actual "help" for the person, and then =
public access skills. Skills training might take me 8 weeks to =
do-teaching a dog to open a door, retrieve the phone, turn on and off =
the lights is pretty straight forward. Even teaching a dog to cue =
someone to take medication, a time sensitive event is pretty simple. =
Public access is the part of the training that is completely different =
and significantly more difficult. The dog must be able to walk into a =
building, be friendly to everyone EVEN if he is having a bad day, =
tolerate being handled, touched and walked into, stepped on, teased =
(yes, I have had adults in the mall tweak my dog's tail!), not be =
distracted from work under any circumstances, not take food off the =
floor, off tables, from people who offer it to him, and enjoy the work.
On top of that, think about the job description you are setting up for =
this dog-you want him to do two things-be a mascot, entailing =
interacting in a very gregarious outgoing way, AND detecting drugs, =
which puts him in the position of having to find something that the =
students don't want found. I think that it would be an interesting =
experiment...but I think that you are asking more of the dog than I =
would ask. A dog who is in school specifically to find drugs is not =
necessarily going to be popular. A dog who is an integral part of a =
"healthy living" program might work, and a dog who is part of a drug =
detection team might work...but putting them both together could create =
some problems. =20
The sad fact is that working dogs are a very special breed-and they =
oughtn't be. I consider my dog D'fer who does triple and quadruple duty =
for me...he is my service dog, my obedience dog, my search partner, and =
my friend. He can do all of this for two reasons-he was purpose bred by =
a careful breeder who thinks hard about every breeding AND he was =
carefully socialized. And even so, there are days when I walk into a =
store with him and think...hmmm...today he is tired and grumpy and =
doesn't really want to be here. So I keep that visit short and sweet =
and give him a break. =20
Yes, there are dogs in shelters who can do this work. But screening =
them is an art and it takes time and resources. In the program I work =
for, we have stopped using rescues because "issues" inevitably turn up =
six, eight or even ten months into the placement-it just isn't =
economical for us NOT to control everything about the dog's upbringing, =
and even then, there are wash outs.
The cost of selecting, training and placing the dog is very high. But =
it works out-consider ten hours of screening a minimum to determine if a =
shelter dog is appropriate for the work that you want him to do. Now if =
you were hiring me from the private sector, that would be 600 dollars =
right there. Say that I have to do that for three dogs to find one dog =
who should be in my program...in reality the other two dogs would likely =
flunk out within the first three hours, so this is only another 6 hours =
of screen...but that is still another 360 dollars. Now we are up to 960 =
dollars and the dog is still sitting in the shelter. You get him out of =
there (200 dollars), and take him home. You have to have equipment, a =
crate, dishes etc.-lets say that kitting out a dog like this is going to =
run you another 600 dollars right off the bat-that is reasonable, but =
necessary. Yes, you can reuse things like bowls and crates once you get =
going, but 600 is about what we estimate for every dog we start. =
Estimate twenty minutes of actual training time every day for two weeks =
at $60/hr for another $360. At two weeks, you think you know the dog =
well enough, so you start doing public access-for an hour a day and now =
the training bill goes up to $300 per week based on a five day week. =
Imaging that things are going swimmingly, you are in the school for =
thirty minutes a day, the dog is happy and doing his job, and then three =
weeks later you hit a snag-the dog will NOT enter the drama room. So =
you get hung up for a week trying to get the dog into the drama room and =
it turns out the dog has a pathological fear of the TV camera in the =
corner. He turns into quivering mess....you have invested five weeks of =
training into this dog and about four thousand dollars, you LIKE the =
dog, and you have to decide-desensitize to cameras or wash out? If you =
decide to desensitize, you can add at least two weeks to your training =
plan and another six hundred dollars. If you wash the dog out...you =
have just flushed four grand down the drain and you start over. The =
economics of training service dogs is something that is not well =
publicized nor well studied, but the facts are there if you start adding =
them up.
Hope this is helpful-I think you have a good idea, I really do, but I =
think that you have to be aware of the costs involved with training =
these dogs, and unless you can find a market for them that is willing to =
pay you to do this, it isn't worth starting out. If there is anything I =
can do to help, by all means ask-the thing I like best about being a =
service dog trainer is being part of a community that is overall helpful =
to one another.
Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC
Dogs in the Park
Guelph, Ontario
sue@dogsinthepark.ca
www.dogsinthepark.ca
From: IN%"pdezabu1@dancris.com" "pduezabou" 10-NOV-2005 10:37:05.91
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
I think it's more likely to bring attention of legal beagles about privacy issues in the United States.
Margaret A. (Peggy) Shunick (Duezabou)
BA, BA, MS (Tufts Center for Animals & Public Policy), ABD
Do you think these issues would apply to a school mascot trained to bring attention to drug, alcohol or cigarette use?
From: IN%"clare@amerion.com" "Clare Lewandowski" 10-NOV-2005 13:00:47.83
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
another concern is health issues in schools, kids who are allergic to or afraid of dogs. I heard of one handicapped child who could not take a service dog into a school because of a severe allergy a schoolmate had. similar issues are why the red cross can not take any pet except service animals into shelters, between allergies and potential problems with fleas, ringworm and the yuck response many people have to real or imagined dog hair or germs, I doubt most grade or middle schools would permit it.
----- Original Message -----
From: pduezabou
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
I think it's more likely to bring attention of legal beagles about privacy issues in the United States.
Margaret A. (Peggy) Shunick (Duezabou)
BA, BA, MS (Tufts Center for Animals & Public Policy), ABD
Do you think these issues would apply to a school mascot trained to bring attention to drug, alcohol or cigarette use?
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 10-NOV-2005 13:44:31.30
To: IN%"clare@amerion.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Expense of training dogs to sniff drugs?
In a message dated 11/10/2005 11:06:02 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
clare@amerion.com writes:
another concern is health issues in schools, kids who are allergic to or
afraid of dogs. I heard of one handicapped child who could not take a service
dog into a school because of a severe allergy a schoolmate had. similar issues
are why the red cross can not take any pet except service animals into
shelters, between allergies and potential problems with fleas, ringworm and the
yuck response many people have to real or imagined dog hair or germs, I doubt
most grade or middle schools would permit it.
Hmm... interesting point, there are schools that have animals but rarely
dogs. It seems to me to be a manageable problem but one of concern.
From: IN%"liyucai5432773@163.com" "=?gb2312?B?bGl5dWNhaTU0MzI3NzM=?=" 12-NOV-2005 06:25:35.30
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "=?UNKNOWN?B?777777777777?="
CC:
Subj: =?gb2312?B?QWJub3JtYWwgYmVoYXZpb3VyIGluIGZhcm1lZCBzaWx2ZXIgLWZveCA=?= =?gb2312?B?dml4ZW5z?=
Dear all
I need some help,I am looking for various abnormal behaviour in farmed silver-fox vixens,I need to give a summarize of all the behaviour of foxes ,which include abnormal.Can somebody give me a hint where to find this information?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards!
Yucai li
From: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" 12-NOV-2005 07:35:05.99
To: IN%"liyucai5432773@163.com" "=?gb2312?B?bGl5dWNhaTU0MzI3NzM=?=", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "=?UNKNOWN?B?777777777777?="
CC:
Subj: RE: =?gb2312?B?QWJub3JtYWwgYmVoYXZpb3VyIGluIGZhcm1lZCBzaWx2ZXIgLWZveCA=?= =?gb2312?B?dml4ZW5z?=
Dear Yucai,
You could start by looking at Morten Bakken's PhD thesis (1994, University=20
of Trondheim) entitled "Infanticidal Behaviour and Reproductive Performance =
in Relation to Competition Capacity among Farmed Silver Fox Vixens, Vulpes=20
vulpes".
If you can't get hold of the whole thesis, Morten and his co-author=20
Braastad published a series of papers on silver fox maternal behaviour from =
1992-94. Let me know if you need details and I can give you the full=20
citations.
Best wishes,
- Moira
--On 12 November 2005 20:25 +0800 "=3D?gb2312?B?bGl5dWNhaTU0MzI3NzM=3D?=3D" =
wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> I need some help,I am looking for various abnormal behaviour in farmed
> silver-fox vixens,I need to give a summarize of all the behaviour of
> foxes ,which include abnormal.Can somebody give me a hint where to find
> this information?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
>
>
> Best regards!
>
>
>
> Yucai li
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =CF=EB =D2=AA =D2=BB =B8=F6 =BF=EC n =B1=B6 =B5=C4 =C3=E2 =B7=D1 =D3=CA =
=CF=E4 =C2=F0 =A3=BF
> 126 =D7=A8 =D2=B5 =B5=E7 =D7=D3 =D3=CA =BE=D6 =A1=AA=A1=AA =C8=AB =C7=F2 =
=C1=EC =CF=C8 =B5=C4 =D6=D0 =CE=C4 =D3=CA =CF=E4 =B4=F8 =C4=E3 =BD=F8 =
=C8=EB =BC=AB =CB=D9
> =D6=AE =C2=C3
-------------------------------------
Dr. Moira Harris
Research Associate
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science
University of Bristol, Langford House
Langford, North Somerset, BS40 5DU, UK
ISAE Membership Secretary
moira.harris@bristol.ac.uk
Tel. Office: +44 (0)117 928 9404
Tel. Mobile: +44 (0)7795 473275
Fax: +44 (0)117 928 9582
From: IN%"randihelene@tillung.no" "Randi Helene Tillung" 12-NOV-2005 08:22:43.41
To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: SV: Abnormal behaviour in farmed silver -fox vixens
Here is some work by colleagues of Bakken and Braastad:
http://www.umb.no/?viewID=3D10758
=20
=20
And maybe the reference list of this could be a good place to start: =
http://asanda.org/documentos/peleteria/bienestar.pdf
=20
=20
Good luck!
=20
Randi Helene Tillung
=20
_____ =20
Fra: liyucai5432773 [mailto:liyucai5432773@163.com]=20
Sendt: 12. november 2005 13:25
Til: =C3=AF=C2=BE=C3=BB=C3=AF=C2=BE=C3=BB=C3=AF=C2=BE=C3=BB
Emne: Abnormal behaviour in farmed silver -fox vixens
=20
Dear all
=20
I need some help,I am looking for various abnormal behaviour in farmed =
silver-fox vixens,I need to give a summarize of all the behaviour of =
foxes ,which include abnormal.Can somebody give me a hint where to find =
this information?
=20
Thanks a lot!
=20
Best regards!
=20
Yucai li
=E6=83=B3 =E8=A6=81 =E4=B8=80 =E4=B8=AA =E5=BF=AB n =E5=80=8D =E7=9A=84 =
=E5=85=8D =E8=B4=B9 =E9=82=AE =E7=AE=B1 =E5=90=97 =EF=BC=9F=20
126 =E4=B8=93 =E4=B8=9A =E7=94=B5 =
=E5=AD=90 =E9=82=AE =E5=B1=80 =E2=80=94=E2=80=94 =E5=85=A8 =E7=90=83 =
=E9=A2=86 =E5=85=88 =E7=9A=84 =E4=B8=AD =E6=96=87 =E9=82=AE =E7=AE=B1 =
=E5=B8=A6 =E4=BD=A0 =E8=BF=9B =E5=85=A5 =E6=9E=81 =E9=80=9F =E4=B9=8B =
=E6=97=85=20
From: IN%"thomassebastian10@yahoo.com" "thomas sebastian" 12-NOV-2005 23:03:36.97
To: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" "joe", IN%"jon.watts@usask.ca" "jon.watts@usask.ca", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology email", IN%"mjs581@mail.usask.ca" "monica"
CC:
Subj: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I do not know whether you have come across cows that suck their own milk.We had a cow that sucks milk from its udder.Generally it does suck the milk in the early morning when the udder is full.Local people say that once the cow gets the taste of milk it is difficult to stop it .We had to cull the animal in the end.
Thomas sebastian
Thomas sebastian
Graduate student
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
52 Campus Drive University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4 ,canada
Ph001-306-966-7056(o)
001-306-244-7573(R)
001-306-220-5601(cell)
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"jhaskins@tpg.com.au" "Jenny Haskins" 13-NOV-2005 03:23:37.76
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology"
CC:
Subj: cow sucking its own milk!
Arrrrghhhh,
Having been a nursing mother. I think that's appalling!!!
Leave a cow long enough with a full udder so much so that she finds the need to suckle herself, and then kill ( aka "cull") the poor animal is absolutely appaling!!!! (Do you "cull" women for using a 'breast pump'??)
Arrrrghhhh!! Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow. I lived on a property once when one poor cow bellowed all night in agony. When I rang the 'owner' he didn't even bother to come out to his cow who had mastitis, but merely said "She's a silly cow anyway, she won't let the calves (her own plus extra poddy calves) suckle."
Arrrrghhhh! As I said before.
Sorry. A cow will only suckle herself if left in agony.. (Who in their right mind would express when a baby is available???)
Jenny Haskins
Family Dog Training
Coffs Harbour, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: thomas sebastian
To: joe ; jon.watts@usask.ca ; applied ethology email ; monica
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I do not know whether you have come across cows that suck their own milk.We had a cow that sucks milk from its udder.Generally it does suck the milk in the early morning when the udder is full.Local people say that once the cow gets the taste of milk it is difficult to stop it .We had to cull the animal in the end.
Thomas sebastian
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 13-NOV-2005 05:54:08.38
To: IN%"jhaskins@tpg.com.au" "Jenny Haskins", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I agree, Jenny. Just when I think I have heard the worst done to animals , something else comes up. It is like when I worked the Children's unit in a Psych. Hospital. I am appalled!
CeAnn
Jenny Haskins wrote:
Arrrrghhhh,
Having been a nursing mother. I think that's appalling!!!
Leave a cow long enough with a full udder so much so that she finds the need to suckle herself, and then kill ( aka "cull") the poor animal is absolutely appaling!!!! (Do you "cull" women for using a 'breast pump'??)
Arrrrghhhh!! Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow. I lived on a property once when one poor cow bellowed all night in agony. When I rang the 'owner' he didn't even bother to come out to his cow who had mastitis, but merely said "She's a silly cow anyway, she won't let the calves (her own plus extra poddy calves) suckle."
Arrrrghhhh! As I said before.
Sorry. A cow will only suckle herself if left in agony.. (Who in their right mind would express when a baby is available???)
Jenny Haskins
Family Dog Training
Coffs Harbour, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: thomas sebastian
To: joe ; jon.watts@usask.ca ; applied ethology email ; monica
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I do not know whether you have come across cows that suck their own milk.We had a cow that sucks milk from its udder.Generally it does suck the milk in the early morning when the udder is full.Local people say that once the cow gets the taste of milk it is difficult to stop it .We had to cull the animal in the end.
Thomas sebastian
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 13-NOV-2005 06:14:52.53
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Don't be so appalled, it probably happens on a much larger scale but is
never reported. Help by stop drinking cow's milk!!
_____
From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 1:54 PM
To: Jenny Haskins; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I agree, Jenny. Just when I think I have heard the worst done to animals ,
something else comes up. It is like when I worked the Children's unit in a
Psych. Hospital. I am appalled!
CeAnn
Jenny Haskins wrote:
Arrrrghhhh,
Having been a nursing mother. I think that's appalling!!!
Leave a cow long enough with a full udder so much so that she finds the need
to suckle herself, and then kill ( aka "cull") the poor animal is
absolutely appaling!!!! (Do you "cull" women for using a 'breast pump'??)
Arrrrghhhh!! Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!)
should *never* be allowed near a milking cow. I lived on a property once
when one poor cow bellowed all night in agony. When I rang the 'owner' he
didn't even bother to come out to his cow who had mastitis, but merely said
"She's a silly cow anyway, she won't let the calves (her own plus extra
poddy calves) suckle."
Arrrrghhhh! As I said before.
Sorry. A cow will only suckle herself if left in agony.. (Who in their
right mind would express when a baby is available???)
Jenny Haskins
Family Dog Training
Coffs Harbour, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: thomas sebastian
To: joe ; jon.watts@usask.ca ; applied
ethology email ; monica
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I do not know whether you have come across cows that suck their own milk.We
had a cow that sucks milk from its udder.Generally it does suck the milk in
the early morning when the udder is full.Local people say that once the cow
gets the taste of milk it is difficult to stop it .We had to cull the
animal in the end.
Thomas sebastian
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
_____
Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 13-NOV-2005 07:41:23.64
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Executive Director
Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc.
The Tiger Foundation
R. R. 3
Kerwood, Ontario Canada N0M 2B0
Tel: (519) 247-1118
Fax: (519) 247-9876
info@kerwoodwolf.com
www.kerwoodwolf.com
info@tigerfoundation.net
www.tigerfoundation.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Jenny Haskins
To: Ethology
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:27 AM
Subject: cow sucking its own milk!
Arrrrghhhh,
Having been a nursing mother. I think that's appalling!!!
Leave a cow long enough with a full udder so much so that she finds the need to suckle herself, and then kill ( aka "cull") the poor animal is absolutely appaling!!!! (Do you "cull" women for using a 'breast pump'??)
Arrrrghhhh!! Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow. I lived on a property once when one poor cow bellowed all night in agony. When I rang the 'owner' he didn't even bother to come out to his cow who had mastitis, but merely said "She's a silly cow anyway, she won't let the calves (her own plus extra poddy calves) suckle."
Arrrrghhhh! As I said before.
Sorry. A cow will only suckle herself if left in agony.. (Who in their right mind would express when a baby is available???)
Jenny Haskins
Family Dog Training
Coffs Harbour, Australia
From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 13-NOV-2005 07:48:37.30
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think very many farmers are this ignorant, at least, none of the farmers that I asked about this incident were. I don't think the key to stopping animal neglect and abuse (of all kinds) is abolishing the use of animal products. This will never occur on a world wide scale. I think it's more realistic to shoot for better education programs and stronger animal protection laws.
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Executive Director
Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc.
The Tiger Foundation
R. R. 3
Kerwood, Ontario Canada N0M 2B0
Tel: (519) 247-1118
Fax: (519) 247-9876
info@kerwoodwolf.com
www.kerwoodwolf.com
info@tigerfoundation.net
www.tigerfoundation.net
----- Original Message -----
From: hilit
To: 'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Don't be so appalled, it probably happens on a much larger scale but is never reported. Help by stop drinking cow's milk!!
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 13-NOV-2005 08:01:16.51
To: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't drink milk, but I do buy it for the coyotes.
CeAnn
hilit wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Don't be so appalled, it probably happens on a much larger scale but is never reported. Help by stop drinking cow's milk!!
---------------------------------
From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 1:54 PM
To: Jenny Haskins; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I agree, Jenny. Just when I think I have heard the worst done to animals , something else comes up. It is like when I worked the Children's unit in a Psych. Hospital. I am appalled!
CeAnn
Jenny Haskins wrote:
Arrrrghhhh,
Having been a nursing mother. I think that's appalling!!!
Leave a cow long enough with a full udder so much so that she finds the need to suckle herself, and then kill ( aka "cull") the poor animal is absolutely appaling!!!! (Do you "cull" women for using a 'breast pump'??)
Arrrrghhhh!! Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow. I lived on a property once when one poor cow bellowed all night in agony. When I rang the 'owner' he didn't even bother to come out to his cow who had mastitis, but merely said "She's a silly cow anyway, she won't let the calves (her own plus extra poddy calves) suckle."
Arrrrghhhh! As I said before.
Sorry. A cow will only suckle herself if left in agony.. (Who in their right mind would express when a baby is available???)
Jenny Haskins
Family Dog Training
Coffs Harbour, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: thomas sebastian
To: joe ; jon.watts@usask.ca ; applied ethology email ; monica
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I do not know whether you have come across cows that suck their own milk.We had a cow that sucks milk from its udder.Generally it does suck the milk in the early morning when the udder is full.Local people say that once the cow gets the taste of milk it is difficult to stop it .We had to cull the animal in the end.
Thomas sebastian
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 13-NOV-2005 08:44:02.97
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
One approach does not deny the other.
_____
From: Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. [mailto:info@kerwoodwolf.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think very many farmers are this ignorant, at least, none of the
farmers that I asked about this incident were. I don't think the key to
stopping animal neglect and abuse (of all kinds) is abolishing the use of
animal products. This will never occur on a world wide scale. I think it's
more realistic to shoot for better education programs and stronger animal
protection laws.
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Executive Director
Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc.
The Tiger Foundation
R. R. 3
Kerwood, Ontario Canada N0M 2B0
Tel: (519) 247-1118
Fax: (519) 247-9876
info@kerwoodwolf.com
www.kerwoodwolf.com
info@tigerfoundation.net
www.tigerfoundation.net
----- Original Message -----
From: hilit
To: 'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Don't be so appalled, it probably happens on a much larger scale but is
never reported. Help by stop drinking cow's milk!!
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 13-NOV-2005 16:14:37.01
To: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have
never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking
cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows?
I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to
cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals
than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I
wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it
in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but
instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would
guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the
milk.
From: IN%"k9ruler@gmail.com" "Christina Le Breton" 13-NOV-2005 21:18:49.94
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why
on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or
even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple
years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
>
> I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have
> never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking
> cow."
> Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing
> cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a
> threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole
> with animals than I am with people!
> Vivian Singer-Ferris
>
> Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I
> wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly
> did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor
> but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for
> flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was
> being lost in the milk.
From: IN%"Borzoo@cox.net" "Dr.Borzoo Afshari" 13-NOV-2005 22:44:08.55
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 13-NOV-2005 23:40:35.26
To: IN%"Borzoo@cox.net" "Dr.Borzoo Afshari", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 14-NOV-2005 07:23:12.12
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used on all kinds of animals.
Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
Laws are aplenty on the books.
Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
Whether its dogs or cows.
Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country. Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was. And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well behaved children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses got outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to go to 'proof' if you will learned manners.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
----- Original Message -----
From: Cecilia Lambert
To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
From: IN%"ewj@uiuc.edu" "E. Wayne Johnson" 14-NOV-2005 09:37:11.25
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Margory is right about laws. The letter of the law kills.
The spirit gives life. The highest good is like water, it nourishes
all without strife,
it flows in places that men reject, and so, is like the Word.
Some animals are injured/damaged/ruined by poor management/poor training.
Some animals are more manageable/trainable than others.
Some of those damaged ones are salvageable; some are not.
Adaptability/Manageability is heritable.
Culling is an effective means for removing undesirables from the gene pool.
Some people enjoy the repair business and make a living at it, but primary use
is the main thing for most of us, most of the time. There is a time
for repairing
and a time for decommissioning junk to the scrap heap. I can find
treasures in my
junk box sometimes, but sometimes I need to go to the dumpster.
Human welfare trumps animal welfare every time, but we should not
allow human welfare to be
a pretext for cruelty.
Cull ruthlessly. When it is time to cull, and you think you need to
cull one, cull it.
The most pathetic animal welfare situations can arise from the
failure to put in the
knife. When we prune a plant, we always cut on the green side. The result is
worth it.
The chaff is taken out and burned with fire.
Otherwise, there becomes so much chaff in the barn that there is no
place for the wheat.
They are machines.
They live, they breathe, they bleed and do other things that flesh does.
But they are flesh and therefore they are machines, indeed.
Some people have deep affection for inanimate objects.
Our affections do not modify the per se characteristics of the object.
At 07:23 AM 11/14/2005, margory cohen wrote:
>What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols
>used on all kinds of animals.
>Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
>Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
>
>Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
>Laws are aplenty on the books.
>Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
>Whether its dogs or cows.
>
>Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine
>country. Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What
>a sight it was. And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
>
>On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US
>where the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in
>well behaved children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers
>of courses got outraged. Mothers who actually their children
>appreciate a place to go to 'proof' if you will learned manners.
>-margory cohen
>San Francisco
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Cecilia Lambert
>To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ;
>applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
>Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
>Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
>I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal
>is that they killed her for doing it.
>CeAnn
>"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" <Borzoo@cox.net> wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from
>something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something
>totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is
>normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or
>behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural
>behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the
>reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who
>live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like
>these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The
>diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her
>udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and
>proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you
>will learn a lot.
>
>Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
>Tempe, Arizona
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Christina Le Breton
>To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
>Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
>Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
>I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG
>approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and
>bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
>
>Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a
>couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
>
>Christina
>
>On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com
><Michalchik@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
>I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who
>have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed
>near a milking cow."
>
>Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to
>nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would
>certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm
>much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
>
>Vivian Singer-Ferris
>Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee,
>I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it
>mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted
>to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it
>was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient
>deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
>
>
>
>
>
>CeAnn Lambert
>Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
>www.coyoterescue.org
>
>
>Yahoo!
>FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
>
>----------
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 14-NOV-2005 10:18:16.24
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Very well put Margory. This disposable mindset is very distressing to me
and why I'm working diligently to get my degree and work in the field of
animal welfare science and, most importantly, WRITE and EDUCATE in every way
I can. In my life it's horses -- where the horse just gets passed around and
around and around until someone uses any little excuse to "put him/her
down". Meanwhile, the horse has developed all kinds of "vices" which are
just the poor horse's way of trying to cope with the devastation of being
unsettled and having no herd or buddies.
We had neighbors like this. They've had, I kid you not, 10 different dogs
at different times in 3 years. The dogs are left to hang out by themselves
in the yard with NO training and no interaction, and so when the dogs
(naturally) start figuring out how to escape the fences and roam the area,
these people's answer is to get rid of them and get another one. They had
one really difficult dog, which had frightened my horse and caused me to
fall off and break my elbow, so they chained him up. I told her later that
if I had seen that, I would have let him loose. He choked himself to death.
I was FURIOUS when I found that out. I had given them literally a dozen
options of ways to deal with this problem. They ignored them all and had
this tragedy happen instead.
As for the cow -- I would argue that the behavior, while perhaps *common* is
NOT *normal*. I'm no cattle expert, but do wild cattle do this? I somehow
doubt it. No, this is a behavior caused by human intervention causing the
animal distress. It's not something that *should* be common and it's not
something to brush off lightly. Whenever an animal (human or non) in our
care exhibits behaviors that signal a possible problem, asthis did, I
believe it is incumbent on us as the caretaker to determine what the problem
is and solve it. And NOT by killing the animal.
Taking the convenient way out tells me that those are people that should NOT
own non-human animals. Killing that cow is not the responsible nor humane
action to take. It's the lazy way.
Virginia
Murrieta, CA
"My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and
bray in the night."
All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms"
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst.
2. Freedom from discomfort.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior.
5. Freedom from fear and distress.
_____
From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 5:24 AM
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used on
all kinds of animals.
Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
Laws are aplenty on the books.
Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
Whether its dogs or cows.
Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country.
Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was.
And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where
the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well behaved
children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses got
outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to go to
'proof' if you will learned manners.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
----- Original Message -----
From: Cecilia Lambert
To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ;
applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that
they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from
something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally
normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now,
what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and
is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think
this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For
people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like
these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The
diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder
hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the
dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why
on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian?
Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple
years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have
never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking
cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows?
I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to
cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals
than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I
wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly
did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor
but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for
flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was
being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
_____
Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
__________ NOD32 1.1284 (20051111) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 14-NOV-2005 10:22:34.47
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
This post is chock full of the attitudes that I'm talking about. They are
NOT machines, any more than you or I are machines! These are living
creatures with thoughts, feelings and desires. And the will and desire to
live a happy life.
I will not argue that some of the worst welfare situations come from an
inability to kill when the time is right, but you're giving examples of
times that are NOT right. And the bottom line is we humans have created far
more lives than we should have, and too many humans have too many lives in
their care when they are humans that should have NO lives in their care.
They are LIVES.
Virginia
Murrieta, CA
"My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and
bray in the night."
All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms"
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst.
2. Freedom from discomfort.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior.
5. Freedom from fear and distress.
_____
From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj@uiuc.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:49 AM
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
Margory is right about laws. The letter of the law kills.
The spirit gives life. The highest good is like water, it nourishes all
without strife,
it flows in places that men reject, and so, is like the Word.
Some animals are injured/damaged/ruined by poor management/poor training.
Some animals are more manageable/trainable than others.
Some of those damaged ones are salvageable; some are not.
Adaptability/Manageability is heritable.
Culling is an effective means for removing undesirables from the gene pool.
Some people enjoy the repair business and make a living at it, but primary
use
is the main thing for most of us, most of the time. There is a time for
repairing
and a time for decommissioning junk to the scrap heap. I can find treasures
in my
junk box sometimes, but sometimes I need to go to the dumpster.
Human welfare trumps animal welfare every time, but we should not allow
human welfare to be
a pretext for cruelty.
Cull ruthlessly. When it is time to cull, and you think you need to cull
one, cull it.
The most pathetic animal welfare situations can arise from the failure to
put in the
knife. When we prune a plant, we always cut on the green side. The result
is
worth it.
The chaff is taken out and burned with fire.
Otherwise, there becomes so much chaff in the barn that there is no place
for the wheat.
They are machines.
They live, they breathe, they bleed and do other things that flesh does.
But they are flesh and therefore they are machines, indeed.
Some people have deep affection for inanimate objects.
Our affections do not modify the per se characteristics of the object.
At 07:23 AM 11/14/2005, margory cohen wrote:
What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used on
all kinds of animals.
Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
Laws are aplenty on the books.
Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
Whether its dogs or cows.
Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country.
Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was.
And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where
the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well behaved
children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses got
outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to go to
'proof' if you will learned manners.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
----- Original Message -----
From: Cecilia Lambert
To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ;
applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that
they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from
something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally
normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now,
what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and
is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think
this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For
people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like
these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The
diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder
hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the
dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why
on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian?
Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple
years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have
never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking
cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows?
I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to
cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals
than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I
wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly
did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor
but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for
flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was
being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
__________ NOD32 1.1284 (20051111) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 14-NOV-2005 10:48:07.89
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Dear All,
Is it not possible that there is another explanation for this cow's
behaviour. Possibly, the milk produced by the cow in the morning tastes
better or is more nutritionally satisfying. The cow has learnt through
trial and error that this is the best time to drink her own milk and might
be unrelated to udder distension.
Chris
--On 14 November 2005 08:15 -0800 Virginia Bowen
wrote:
>
> This post is chock full of the attitudes that I'm talking about. They
> are NOT machines, any more than you or I are machines! These are living
> creatures with thoughts, feelings and desires. And the will and desire
> to live a happy life.
>
> I will not argue that some of the worst welfare situations come from an
> inability to kill when the time is right, but you're giving examples of
> times that are NOT right. And the bottom line is we humans have created
> far more lives than we should have, and too many humans have too many
> lives in their care when they are humans that should have NO lives in
> their care. They are LIVES.
>
> Virginia
> Murrieta, CA
>
> "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun
> and bray in the night."
>
> All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms"
> 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst.
> 2. Freedom from discomfort.
> 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease.
> 4. Freedom to express normal behavior.
> 5. Freedom from fear and distress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj@uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:49 AM
> To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
>
>
> Margory is right about laws. The letter of the law kills.
> The spirit gives life. The highest good is like water, it nourishes all
> without strife,
> it flows in places that men reject, and so, is like the Word.
>
> Some animals are injured/damaged/ruined by poor management/poor training.
>
> Some animals are more manageable/trainable than others.
>
> Some of those damaged ones are salvageable; some are not.
>
> Adaptability/Manageability is heritable.
>
> Culling is an effective means for removing undesirables from the gene
> pool.
>
> Some people enjoy the repair business and make a living at it, but
> primary use
> is the main thing for most of us, most of the time. There is a time for
> repairing
> and a time for decommissioning junk to the scrap heap. I can find
> treasures in my
> junk box sometimes, but sometimes I need to go to the dumpster.
> Human welfare trumps animal welfare every time, but we should not allow
> human welfare to be
> a pretext for cruelty.
>
> Cull ruthlessly. When it is time to cull, and you think you need to cull
> one, cull it.
> The most pathetic animal welfare situations can arise from the failure to
> put in the
> knife. When we prune a plant, we always cut on the green side. The
> result is
> worth it.
>
> The chaff is taken out and burned with fire.
> Otherwise, there becomes so much chaff in the barn that there is no place
> for the wheat.
>
> They are machines.
> They live, they breathe, they bleed and do other things that flesh does.
> But they are flesh and therefore they are machines, indeed.
>
> Some people have deep affection for inanimate objects.
> Our affections do not modify the per se characteristics of the object.
>
>
> At 07:23 AM 11/14/2005, margory cohen wrote:
>
>
> What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used
> on all kinds of animals.
> Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
> Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
>
> Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
> Laws are aplenty on the books.
> Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
> Whether its dogs or cows.
>
> Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country.
> Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was.
> And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
>
> On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where
> the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well
> behaved children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses
> got outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to
> go to 'proof' if you will learned manners.
> -margory cohen
> San Francisco
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari
> ; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk! I don't think the big deal is that
> the animal did it. The big deal is that they killed her for doing it.
> CeAnn "Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
> Dear all, I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal
> from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something
> totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal
> behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who
> doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any
> other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any
> vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to
> seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book
> about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her
> milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some
> vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm
> and you will learn a lot. Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM Tempe, Arizona
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christina Le Breton To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent:
> Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18 Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk! I
> do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG
> approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in
> a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist? Dear lord, this is absolutely
> unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my
> doctorate.... Christina On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com
> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
> I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have
> never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a
> milking cow." Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat
> to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly
> not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on
> the whole with animals than I am with people! Vivian Singer-Ferris Well,
> speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder
> if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it
> in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but
> instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for
> flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was
> being lost in the milk.
>
>
>
>
>
> CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org
>
>
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date:
> 11/11/2005
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1284 (20051111) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
----------------------
Chris Sherwin
Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare
Division Clinical Veterinary Science
University of Bristol
Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk
Phone 0117 928 9486
From: IN%"Torreys@AGR.GC.CA" "Torrey, Stephanie" 14-NOV-2005 11:02:32.70
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: umbilical catheters in pigs
Has anyone used umbilical catheters in neonatal pigs for serial blood =
collection? If so, were these pigs housed in groups or individually? And =
how long could the catheter remain in the umbilicus?
Thanks,
Stephanie
Stephanie Torrey, PhD
Swine Behaviour and Welfare/Bien-=EAtre et Comportement du Porc
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada/Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Dairy and Swine Research Centre/Centre R&D sur le Bovin Laitier et le =
Porc
PO Box 90- 2000, route 108 East
Lennoxville, QC, Canada, J1M 1Z3
Telephone/T=E9l=E9phone: 819-565-9171 ext 129
Facsimile/T=E9l=E9copieur: 819-564-5507
torreys@agr.gc.ca
=20
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Agriculture et Agroalimentaire =
Canada
From: IN%"hebeab@yahoo.com" "Hebe Alexander-Bloomer" 14-NOV-2005 12:01:41.32
To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Re the Chicago coffee shop owner, I read yesterday in the local paper that his business has increased over 300% since he posted the sign requested that 'children of all ages must use their indoor voices.' I was happy to see it - my husband and I have often asked for a table in the smoking section because there are usually fewer kids seated in that area!
margory cohen wrote:What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used on all kinds of animals.
Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
Laws are aplenty on the books.
Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
Whether its dogs or cows.
Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country. Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was. And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well behaved children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses got outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to go to 'proof' if you will learned manners.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
----- Original Message -----
From: Cecilia Lambert
To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
From: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com" 14-NOV-2005 12:25:01.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Human - dog relationships
I thought I would throw into the canine ethology bubbling pot a growing =20
difference of opinions in one central issue relating to canine behaviour. =20
Question: - Is the social behaviour of the modern day Canis Familiaris stil=
l=20
strongly influenced by the hierarchical pack system within a domestic famil=
y=20
setting? =20
The eminent canine ethologist Raymond Coppinger certainly questions it and=20
Jean Donaldson in her book The Cultural Clash completely rubbishes the pack=20=
=20
theory in human =E2=80=93 dog relationships, albeit from a dog trainer's per=
spective. =20
Most studies on urban feral dogs have shown that the dogs formed amorphous a=
nd =20
ephemeral associations.=20
So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha leader stil=
l=20
an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship? =20
Yours=20
Gordon Butcher=20
United Kingdom
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "Hilit Finkler" 14-NOV-2005 12:33:50.23
To: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Human - dog relationships
So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha leader still
an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship?
In my case this is certainly the case - the failure to become the alpha is
causing me and my husband endless difficulties with our mixed breed Canaan
male. He is 8 and still "plays with us".
Hilit
-----Original Message-----
From: LyndhurstPark@aol.com [mailto:LyndhurstPark@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:20 PM
To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Human - dog relationships
I thought I would throw into the canine ethology bubbling pot a growing
difference of opinions in one central issue relating to canine behaviour.
Question: - Is the social behaviour of the modern day Canis Familiaris still
strongly influenced by the hierarchical pack system within a domestic family
setting?
The eminent canine ethologist Raymond Coppinger certainly questions it and
Jean Donaldson in her book The Cultural Clash completely rubbishes the pack
theory in human - dog relationships, albeit from a dog trainer's
perspective. Most studies on urban feral dogs have shown that the dogs
formed amorphous and ephemeral associations.
So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha leader still
an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship?
Yours
Gordon Butcher
United Kingdom
From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 14-NOV-2005 15:23:55.87
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Human - dog relationships
In a message dated 11/14/2005 12:27:54 P.M. Central Standard Time, =20
LyndhurstPark@aol.com writes:
Question: - Is the social behaviour of the modern day Canis Familiaris stil=
l=20
strongly influenced by the hierarchical pack system within a domestic famil=
y=20
setting? =20
I do think that within a social system a canid is going to act like a canid=20=
=20
and expect a social structure with some individuals controlling some things=
. =20
All their social behaviors are based on being a dog, nothing else.
The eminent canine ethologist Raymond Coppinger certainly questions it and=20
Jean Donaldson in her book The Cultural Clash completely rubbishes the pack=
=20
theory in human =E2=80=93 dog relationships, albeit from a dog trainer's pe=
rspective.=20
Most studies on urban feral dogs have shown that the dogs formed amorphous=20=
and=20
ephemeral associations.=20
So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha leader stil=
l=20
an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship
Personally, I think the problem with the Alpha concept has more to do on ho=
w=20
humans interpret and enforce it than whether or not our pet dogs understand=20=
=20
it or live by it. I believe that any animal that lives within a social gro=
up=20
needs to understand the group dynamic and how to interact within that group=
.=20
In other words how to avoid conflict and work together in harmony. In many=
=20
social groups some individuals have more control than others when it comes=20=
to=20
the resources that the group uses (food, mates, resting places etc). How=20
that control is achieved may differ from species to species. Unfortunately=
too=20
many humans assume that being "alpha" means being punitive, harsh and using=
=20
physical punishment. When you watch dog groups that is not the norm. Dogs=
=20
usually (nothing is absolute) manage to get along, control access to resour=
ces=20
etc without very much out right fighting and rely a great deal on body=20
postures, facial expressions and I believe their ethological roots in being=
a=20
canid. When humans interact with dogs many (and I am referring to the aver=
age dog=20
owner) either try to use language, which dogs don't have or use what they=20
think are canid techniques (such as rolling the dog, neck shakes, elevation=
s=20
etc which someone told them the NEEDED to do to be alpha) which they execu=
te=20
poorly because they are not dogs. The end result is often quite damaging to=
=20
the human-canine relationship. IMO, to have a harmonious human-dog=20
relationship requires each to clearly understand what the other is trying t=
o=20
communicate, have clear rules and expectations, be consistent, rational and=
humane. =20
=20
Best regards,
=20
Debbie
=20
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
11469 Olive Blvd. #254
St. Louis, MO 63141-7108
Phone and fax: 314-567-4131
e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com
From: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com" 14-NOV-2005 16:47:44.73
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Human - dog relationships
This is a very hot topic=2E The process of domestication is very =
interesting=2E In the words of a friend of mine=2C =22dogs are not wolves=
=22=2E =
The process of domestication and our unnatural selection has changed =
the domestic dog in ways we will never know=2E Dogs allow us (accept =
us) into their social groups=2E Does that mean they see us a tall two =
legged dogs=3F Absolutely not! They see us as a separate species that =
does not totally understand their social norms and signals=2E For =
instance=2C normal dogs allow us to hug them and appear to enjoy it even =
though this is a big NO NO within their own species=2E Watch dogs =
interact with each other and then how they respond to us=2E Normal dogs =
(who really get it) don=27t expect that we follow their rules of =
engagement=2E
When it comes to many of the dogs I see clinically for owner-directed =
aggression=2C the dogs are not normal dogs=2E They may respond to human =
signals out of anxiety (fear) or not understand that we are too stupid =
to understand their social signals=2E As Dr=2E Horwitz said=2C it comes =
down to confused communication=2E If a dog doesn=27t get it=2C a normal d=
og =
responds to it differently=2E As a result=2C we have to treat these dogs =
with a different tact=2E Dominance is not the same as aggression=2E Alpha=
=
should never involve punishment=2E I am starting to ramble=2E
Gerry
Gerrard Flannigan DVM=2C MSc=2E
Diplomate=2C ACVB
gflannigan=40triad=2Err=2Ecom
----- Original Message -----
From=3A Christina Le Breton =3Ck9ruler=40gmail=2Ecom=3E
Date=3A Monday=2C November 14=2C 2005 3=3A02 pm
Subject=3A Fwd=3A Human - dog relationships
=3E ---------- Forwarded message ----------
=3E From=3A Christina Le Breton =3Ck9ruler=40gmail=2Ecom=3E
=3E Date=3A Nov 14=2C 2005 1=3A02 PM
=3E Subject=3A Re=3A Human - dog relationships
=3E To=3A Hilit Finkler =3Chilit=40teldan=2Ecom=3E
=3E =
=3E =
=3E I do believe 100=25 that if there is no leader within the =27pack=27 =
wether
=3E human or canide=2C the dog will fight for that leadership=2E
=3E =
=3E Ask yourself this=2E=2E=2Edo you ever see an aggressive dog biting it=
=27s
=3E owner who is also a trainer or behaviorist=3F No=2E=2E=2Enot really=2E=
In
=3E fact=2C it=27s often quite rare=2E
=3E =
=3E Why=3F Because that particular owner KNOWS how to deal with that dog=
=3E and has earned that respect=2E
=3E =
=3E In the end=2C it IS all about respecting one another=2C and if you ca=
n do
=3E that=2C the dog will allow you to be the =22boss=22 much easier=2E=2E=
=2Eit=27ll =
make
=3E him feel better =3A)
=3E =
=3E Christina
=3E =
=3E On 11/14/05=2C Hilit Finkler =3Chilit=40teldan=2Ecom=3E wrote=3A
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E So=2C is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha=
=
=3E leader still
=3E =3E an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship=
=3F
=3E =3E
=3E =3E In my case this is certainly the case =96 the failure to become =
=3E the alpha is
=3E =3E causing me and my husband endless difficulties with our mixed =
=3E breed Canaan
=3E =3E male=2E He is 8 and still =22plays with us=22=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Hilit
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E -----Original Message-----
=3E =3E From=3A LyndhurstPark=40aol=2Ecom =5Bmailto=3ALyndhurstPark=40ao=
l=2Ecom=5D
=3E =3E Sent=3A Monday=2C November 14=2C 2005 8=3A20 PM
=3E =3E To=3A applied-ethology=40skyway=2Eusask=2Eca
=3E =3E Subject=3A Re=3A Human - dog relationships
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E I thought I would throw into the canine ethology bubbling pot a =
=3E growing=3E difference of opinions in one central issue relating to =
=3E canine behaviour=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Question=3A - Is the social behaviour of the modern day Canis =
=3E Familiaris still
=3E =3E strongly influenced by the hierarchical pack system within a =
=3E domestic family
=3E =3E setting=3F
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E The eminent canine ethologist Raymond Coppinger certainly =
=3E questions it and
=3E =3E Jean Donaldson in her book The Cultural Clash completely =
=3E rubbishes the pack
=3E =3E theory in human =96 dog relationships=2C albeit from a dog traine=
r=27s
=3E =3E perspective=2E Most studies on urban feral dogs have shown that =
=3E the dogs
=3E =3E formed amorphous and ephemeral associations=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E So=2C is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the Alpha=
=
=3E leader still
=3E =3E an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog relationship=
=3F
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Yours
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Gordon Butcher
=3E =3E
=3E =3E United Kingdom
=3E
From: IN%"clager@c.dk" "Christina Lager" 15-NOV-2005 00:59:08.85
To: IN%"k9ruler@gmail.com" "Christina Le Breton"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Fwd: Human - dog relationships
I also believe that the pack teory is valid.
Not that the human need to physically dominate the dog(s) in his/her care, but to become the leader by showing good leadership viz: initiating activities, providing care, food, love and stimulating activities, protecting the "pack" from harm - well you know just generally behaving as a good leader: selfcontrolled, radiating "I know what I am doing, and are taking charge." Respect is not given - it is earned, and both need to respect each others.
I see a lot of dogs who's owners do not show good leadership thereby leaving a vacuum that the dog will try to fill out itself, often leading to frustrated attempts to control situations beyond a dogs control - barking at every passerby, being protective-aggressive towards strangers, being restless and pacing. These troubles are often solved when the owner changes his/her ways and start being a true leader - as described above.
best regards from
Christina Lager DVM
Denmark
As an aside our own young male chesapeake (Oban) was attacked by a poodle when he was just a big pup. My husband quickly placed himself between the dogs and succeded in scaring the poodle away. The result is that even now, four years later, when other dogs act out Oban will just sit there looking up at my husband, completely trusting him to solve the problem - What a responsibility to have!
Once at a show my husband wasn't quick enough and a small dog bit Oban in the lip - and held on, trying to shake Oban, who just kept his big head completely still while bleeding quietly and keeping his eyes on my husband, who of cause plucked the little growling snapping maniac dwarfpinscher of Oban's lip, and handed the pinscher back to its owner - who laughed and said - "ooh he is sooo playfull." "yaehr right - learn some basic dog language" was my husband's reply which sent the woman into a rage, so we walked away, went home and cleaned Oban up...
Christina Le Breton wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Christina Le Breton
> Date: Nov 14, 2005 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Human - dog relationships
> To: Hilit Finkler
>
>
> I do believe 100% that if there is no leader within the
> 'pack' wether
> human or canide, the dog will fight for that leadership.
>
> Ask yourself this...do you ever see an aggressive dog biting
> it's
> owner who is also a trainer or behaviorist? No...not
> really. In
> fact, it's often quite rare.
>
> Why? Because that particular owner KNOWS how to deal with
> that dog
> and has earned that respect.
>
> In the end, it IS all about respecting one another, and if
> you can do
> that, the dog will allow you to be the "boss" much
> easier...it'll make
> him feel better :)
>
> Christina
>
> On 11/14/05, Hilit Finkler wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the
> Alpha leader still
> > an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog
> relationship?
> >
> > In my case this is certainly the case ? the failure to
> become the alpha is
> > causing me and my husband endless difficulties with our
> mixed breed Canaan
> > male. He is 8 and still "plays with us".
> >
> > Hilit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LyndhurstPark@aol.com
> [mailto:LyndhurstPark@aol.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:20 PM
> > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
> > Subject: Re: Human - dog relationships
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought I would throw into the canine ethology bubbling
> pot a growing
> > difference of opinions in one central issue relating to
> canine behaviour.
> >
> >
> >
> > Question: - Is the social behaviour of the modern day
> Canis Familiaris still
> > strongly influenced by the hierarchical pack system within
> a domestic family
> > setting?
> >
> >
> >
> > The eminent canine ethologist Raymond Coppinger certainly
> questions it and
> > Jean Donaldson in her book The Cultural Clash completely
> rubbishes the pack
> > theory in human ? dog relationships, albeit from a dog
> trainer's
> > perspective. Most studies on urban feral dogs have shown
> that the dogs
> > formed amorphous and ephemeral associations.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, is the need for dog owners to succeed in becoming the
> Alpha leader still
> > an essential precondition for a harmonious human-dog
> relationship?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > Gordon Butcher
> >
> > United Kingdom
mvh
Christina Lager
From: IN%"elena.bajona@animantia.com" "Animantia - Elena Bajona" 15-NOV-2005 05:55:28.01
To: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Dear All,
in our academy we have a professionals who, working in a lot of ranches in the US, has seen this happens many times. However it is not because she has a full udder, most of the time it is a first calf heifer and will suck herself leaving the new born calf to fend for itself, it happens I believe because she became a mother to soon. Some ranchers would take their knife and split her tongue to make her stop. Peoples reaction to this is typical............With dogs, with horses...The behaviorist has a long way to go through...
Hope this can help...
Elena Bajona
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A n i m a n t i a - The Animal Academy
Tenuta Santa Vittoria
58043 Castiglione della Pescaia, GR - Italy
Phone: 001 39 347 1715852
Fax: 001 39 06 233 106 72
Website: www.animantia.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Virginia Bowen
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 05:10 PM
Subject: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Very well put Margory. This disposable mindset is very distressing to me and why I'm working diligently to get my degree and work in the field of animal welfare science and, most importantly, WRITE and EDUCATE in every way I can. In my life it's horses -- where the horse just gets passed around and around and around until someone uses any little excuse to "put him/her down". Meanwhile, the horse has developed all kinds of "vices" which are just the poor horse's way of trying to cope with the devastation of being unsettled and having no herd or buddies.
We had neighbors like this. They've had, I kid you not, 10 different dogs at different times in 3 years. The dogs are left to hang out by themselves in the yard with NO training and no interaction, and so when the dogs (naturally) start figuring out how to escape the fences and roam the area, these people's answer is to get rid of them and get another one. They had one really difficult dog, which had frightened my horse and caused me to fall off and break my elbow, so they chained him up. I told her later that if I had seen that, I would have let him loose. He choked himself to death. I was FURIOUS when I found that out. I had given them literally a dozen options of ways to deal with this problem. They ignored them all and had this tragedy happen instead.
As for the cow -- I would argue that the behavior, while perhaps *common* is NOT *normal*. I'm no cattle expert, but do wild cattle do this? I somehow doubt it. No, this is a behavior caused by human intervention causing the animal distress. It's not something that *should* be common and it's not something to brush off lightly. Whenever an animal (human or non) in our care exhibits behaviors that signal a possible problem, asthis did, I believe it is incumbent on us as the caretaker to determine what the problem is and solve it. And NOT by killing the animal.
Taking the convenient way out tells me that those are people that should NOT own non-human animals. Killing that cow is not the responsible nor humane action to take. It's the lazy way.
Virginia
Murrieta, CA
"My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night."
All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms"
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst.
2. Freedom from discomfort.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior.
5. Freedom from fear and distress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 5:24 AM
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
What CeAnn wrote is an objection that many of us raise in protocols used on all kinds of animals.
Me, I see it in the dog world. No doubt some others of you do too.
Better dead than trained. Anymore in some circles that's the mantra.
Ignorance is not changed by more laws.
Laws are aplenty on the books.
Enforcement is negligible and education is less.
Whether its dogs or cows.
Saw something on goats last night on a local show about wine country. Fabulous feature. No hand milking there, too many. What a sight it was. And best of all was Bart the Guard Llama.
On the other hand was a feature on a coffee shop in Chicago, Il, US where the owner has had flack because he's asked parents to bring in well behaved children, not wild monsters. Holier than thou mothers of courses got outraged. Mothers who actually their children appreciate a place to go to 'proof' if you will learned manners.
-margory cohen
San Francisco
----- Original Message -----
From: Cecilia Lambert
To: Dr.Borzoo Afshari ; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I don't think the big deal is that the animal did it. The big deal is that they killed her for doing it.
CeAnn
"Dr.Borzoo Afshari" wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas. I don't know why you make such a big deal from something simple and natural. What happen with this cow is something totally normal to see for people who live in farms and thid is normal behavior. Now, what is not normal is to see, is a vet or behaviorist who doesn't know, and is unusual about this natural behavior in cows, or any other mamal. I think this should be the reason that they did not call any vet or behaviorist. For people who live in farms and ranches are used to seeing every day cases like these, and believe me, they can write a book about all of this. The diagnostic is very simple. 1: She likes how her milk tastes. 2: Her udder hurts because is full. or 3: She needs some vitamines and proteins in the dairy food. Just move from town to the farm and you will learn a lot.
Borzoo Afshari, BS, MAS, AB, DVM
Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Le Breton
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 20:18
Subject: Re: cow sucking its own milk!
I do agree that the culling of the cow was TOTALLY the WRONG approach....why on earth did they not look into that further and bring in a veterinarian? Or even a behaviorist?
Dear lord, this is absolutely unreal...I'll keep that in mind in a couple years when I go to get my doctorate....
Christina
On 11/13/05, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:43:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, info@kerwoodwolf.com writes:
I agree with you Jenny except for one statement: "Men (or women who have never has babies for that matter!) should *never* be allowed near a milking cow."
Why do you feel women who haven't had children are a threat to nursing cows? I've never had children (by choice) but would certainly not be a threat to cattle or other animals. In fact, I'm much better on the whole with animals than I am with people!
Vivian Singer-Ferris
Well, speaking as a man, my first thought when I read this was. Gee, I wonder if the cow needed to be milked more often. The fact that it mainly did it in the morning indicates to me that it wasn't addicted to the flavor but instead just wanted to relieve the pressure. If it was doing it for flavor, I would guess the cow had a nutrient deficiency due to what was being lost in the milk.
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005
__________ NOD32 1.1284 (20051111) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
From: IN%"whitebird@xtra.co.nz" "Whitebirds" 15-NOV-2005 11:28:54.39
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: cow sucking its own milk!
Hi,
I'm wondering how these cows who drink their own milk are housed? Indoors?
I live on a dairy farm in New Zealand. Cows graze outside all year round. I've seen a cow drink her own milk once. Not sure of her age and I think the only reason she would be culled would be if she drank so much there was none to go in the vat :)).
Cheers
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Virginia Bowen
As for the cow -- I would argue that the behavior, while perhaps *common* is NOT *normal*. I'm no cattle expert, but do wild cattle do this? I somehow doubt it. No, this is a behavior caused by human intervention causing the animal distress. It's not something that *should* be common and it's not something to brush off lightly. Whenever an animal (human or non) in our care exhibits behaviors that signal a possible problem, asthis did, I believe it is incumbent on us as the caretaker to determine what the problem is and solve it. And NOT by killing the animal.